Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
truth and reconciliation commission south africa
+truth and reconciliation commitee in south africa of gugulethu seven and its impact
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: truth and reconciliation commission south africa
There is little doubt that the process of transitional justice is a long and complex process of political, social and economic changes - especially considering the fact that it usually occurs in post-conflict societies and thus in nations that are still in a process of being shaped. Today’s theory on transitional justice emerged from historic tribunals, such as the Nurnberg trials after WWII, and truth and/or reconciliation commissions, for example the Gacaca courts after the Rwandan genocide or the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Even though some of these institutions pioneered some 70 years ago, very little research has been done on their operation modes and their actual outcomes - most studies tend to focus on how methods should operate in lieu of devoting their analysis to how they really operated.
The ICTR had been created in November 1994 and installed in Arusha in February the following year. In April it had produced its own list of four hundred genocide suspects, supposed to be more neutral than the various lists produced in Rwanda itself. A year later it was still floundering about, complaining about “lack of means,” not having even produced any indictment, much less
Recent history is replete with egregious, widespread and often systematic wrongdoings: genocide, torture, and mass killing. Cambodia, South Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, and Guatemala are examples where these grave political injustices have occurred. Histories of violence and humanitarian atrocities leave marks of damage, despair, and pain that can only justice can begin to heal. Hence the central question of Daniel Philpott’s book Just and Unjust Peace: An Ethic of Political Reconciliation: “What does justice consist of in the wake of its massive despoliation?” The answer, Philpott argues, is political reconciliation. However, in investigating two of Philpott’s six practices of reconciliation—apology
Marks, Stephen P. "Elusive Justice For The Victims Of The Khmer Rouge." Journal Of International Affairs 52.2 (1999): 691. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. .
Mallinder, Louise. "Can Amnesties and International Justice Be Reconciled?" The International Journal of Transitional Justice 1.2 (2007): 208-30.
In order for one to understand the criminal justice system, it is important to study both the criminal law of one’s own country as well as surrounding countries. By engaging in comparative criminal justice studies, one can expand this knowledge through the discovery of similarities and differences in the structure of criminal justice agencies of various nations or states. There are a multitude of factors which could contribute to the differences in each nation’s criminal justice system. By studying the ways in which other countries operate their criminal justice system, it may be possible to learn ways in which we could better our own system. In order to do this, we can study the ways in which various court systems operate around the world. In doing so, we will examine countries with both a different and similar judicial system to ours and discover the differences in how each operates. In furtherance of understanding the criminal justice system, we will
Stewart, M. (2011). The space between the steps: reckoning in an area of reconciliation. Contemporary Justice Review, 14(1), 43-63. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/10282580.2011.541076
Concerns about the ineffectiveness of traditional criminal justice systems have perpetrated new approaches to criminal justice. Such new approaches to transitional justice or restorative justice like truth commission, trails, reparation, and lustration or vetting. But the apprehension of restorative justice and retributive justice bring to light the argument and made clear that each is not as impeccable or a straightforward answer to justice for all legitimate victims. From 1945 to 2003 we have seen many different types of tribunals put together to handle criminal transgressors. Therefore, in exploring human’s interconnection, humanity’s overreaction to emotion and the method of justices will illustrate why restoration justice is as futile as traditional restitution justice.
Following the 1994 Rwandan genocide, more than 120,000 people were accused of bearing criminal responsibility for their participation in the killings of thousands of moderate Hutus and Tutsi. To help handle and control the mass number of perpetrators, the government chose to allow the operation of Gacaca community courts. This decision was controversial, and in many communities it was debated that the process was circumnavigated in favor of dispensing quick justice. These people who argue this decision, claim Gacaca courts violate the rights of people placed on trial. Although this is perceived by many Rwandan citizens, Gacaca courts were an acceptable mean of bringing justice to the perpetrators of the genocide. Many
Resembling state-base justice, traditional justice has a rich history and before we talk about the pros and cons of this justice approach, I will first define traditional justice and its history. Unlike state-based approach, traditional justice attempts to repair harmed relationships and there does not exists any formal procedures (Diamond). What this means is that both parties must come together and solve the issue and often with the help of a third party who is often a chief or anindividual that is respected and with no stakes in the issue (Diamond). Both parties also have to come together with the intent to repair harm that was damaged through the wrongful act and as a result, they are less selfish (Diamond). In addition, in order for the two parties to come together, the guilty party acknowledges their misbehavior and explain why they did it (Diamond).
The third source that I will be using for my paper is by Mark R Amstutz. In this book he describes in great detail about transitional justice, political forgiveness, and cases in different countries, mainly Argentina, Chile, Northern Ireland, and South Africa. He especially dedicated chapters on retributive justice and the limits of forgiveness in Argentina, and the quest for reconciliation through truth telling in Chile. He argues that forgiveness is an essential part of politics when dealing with the collective wrongdoing of military regime and believes that a combination knowing the truth, victims getting an public apology, repentance and compensation and ultimately forgiveness and the lifting of deserved penalties will bring reconciliation
Its foundation is a range of mechanism and processes that are characterized into two categories, retributive and restorative justices; to provide form reparation for the victims of human right abuses and to construct punishments for individuals or groups for the crimes that were committed during the process of transition. There are five “core principles” of transitional justice are; trials, truth commissions, reparations, lustrations and amnesties. These mechanisms are implemented to accomplish the state’s obligations to investigate, prosecute and punish individuals, to seek the truth, to aide victim with reparations and to reform abusive institutions. Within in the last decades, transitional justice as method has evolved essentially and it’s considered the principle to the processes of transition to democracy and peace and the answer to national conflict. Thus, political leaders seek the installation of these temporary mechanisms to challenge past violations and to help restore legitimate legal systems and democratic
The concept of a truth commission was to provide a form and forum for those wronged in civil wars and dirty wars, to reveal the truth of what happened during them. Truth commissions’ function extremely well as political tools for transitional governments, it in basic has a dual purpose. To provide a form of catharsis for victim- survivors , and to give transitional governments a tool with which to draw a line in the sand; to create a clear distinction between the past and the present. The form of a truth commission and its capacity to fulfil its objectives, is dictated by the government requesting the report. This essay will focus on the truth commissions of Peru and Guatemala. As they provide a sample of the two different types of governments that order truth commission investigations. Governments that act as almost an obstacle to truth and those who aid it. This essay will assess whether or not truth commissions actually provide the appropriate closure, reconciliation and reparation for those who were most affected by the violations, and are not just political instruments used by the government.
Recent history is repleat with egregious, widespread and often systematic wrongdoings: genocide, torture, and mass killing. Cambodia, South Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, and Guatemala are examples where these grave political injustices have occurred. Histories of violence and humanitarian atrocities leave marks of damage, despair, and pain that can only justice can begin to heal. Hence the central question of Daniel Philpott’s book Just and Unjust Peace: An Ethic of Political Reconciliation: “What does justice consist of in the wake of its massive despoliation?” The answer, Philpott argues, is political reconciliation. However, in investigating two of Philpott’s six practices of reconciliation—apology and forgiveness—I argue that while the philosophy of political reconciliation is an aspirational goal, it is by no means a perfect process because the practices will not necessarily have the same implications for all parties involved.
When the general public is asked about defining a concept of justice, most tend to settle on the idea of fairness. However, what fairness means to one may be inconceivable to another; it is subjective. Within scholarly circles, there are two dichotomies of justice that are discussed: retributive justice and restorative justice. Retributive justice centers on a sense of just desserts, of punishment against the offender to fix the wrong that they have committed. On the other hand, restorative justice emphasizes mediation and understanding between the victim and the offender. This is so that a consensus may be reached in regard to the violated social norms. Restorative justice centers on reparation. The points made here are twofold. First, it is posited that the application of justice is not dichotomous, but a spectrum. Second, it is posited that the ambiguity of the term “justice” is used as leverage for political policy, not as a conceptual framework to achieve fairness. With all the ambiguity surrounding justice as a concept as well as its application, a call to action must be made to the Department of Justice; they should seek to end these debates about the application of justice by openly discussing the concept of justice with supporting documents, thereby informing the public more fully and honestly about how the United States applies the concept of justice.
After decades of war in Afghanistan in late 2001, first attempts have already been made by Afghans and international organizations to consult the Afghan people on how to build capacities in pace-building which was an encouraging sign. However, the people in general are still too reluctant to speak about their suffering during the war. Instead, their current priority is to struggle for economic survival in the highly competitive post-conflict reconstruction business with its emerging social injustice. This pragmatic attitude causes a basic problem. If the past is not addressed, efforts to build a lasting peace are endangered. As lessons from other post-conflict societies have shown, national reconciliation contributes to overcoming the past and reuniting a war-divided society (Schirch, Rafiee, & Sakhi, 2013). There are several ways to bring about peace, stability and harmony in Afghanistan. This paper reviews some issues crucial for discussing and designing a strategy of national reconciliation. Moreover, for narrowing the gap between the rival perceptions there is also a need for an Afghan peace process to prepare the ground for peace-building and a future reconciliation process and implementation of an Afghan mechanism of national reconciliation including the ‘’lessons learned’’ from the post-conflict societies.