#transitional justice

The philosophy of peace is a complex field that explores the nature of peace, its principles, and the conditions required to achieve it. Here are some prominent theories and perspectives within the philosophy of peace:

Pacifism: Pacifism is a foundational theory of peace, emphasizing non-violence and the rejection of war as a means of resolving conflicts. It includes various subcategories, such as absolute pacifism (opposition to all forms of violence) and conditional pacifism (accepting non-violent resistance but opposing armed conflict).

Just War Theory: This theory, rooted in ethical philosophy, provides a framework for determining when wars can be morally justifiable. It sets criteria for the initiation and conduct of wars and emphasizes proportionality and the protection of non-combatants.

Positive Peace: Positive peace goes beyond the absence of war and focuses on the presence of conditions that contribute to a just and sustainable peace. It considers socio-economic equity, social justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability as essential components of lasting peace.

Conflict Resolution Theories: These theories aim to resolve conflicts through non-violent means. They include negotiation, mediation, diplomacy, and alternative dispute resolution methods. The works of scholars like Johan Galtung and his "positive and negative peace" concept contribute to this field.

Cosmopolitanism: Cosmopolitanism promotes a global perspective that transcends national boundaries. It suggests that a sense of shared humanity can lead to a more peaceful world by emphasizing global citizenship and cooperation among nations.

Feminist Peace Theory: Feminist perspectives on peace challenge traditional notions of masculinity and warfare. They argue for the inclusion of women's voices in peace processes and highlight the links between gender equality, security, and peace.

Transitional Justice: This theory focuses on addressing the legacies of conflict and human rights abuses in post-conflict societies. It explores mechanisms for accountability, truth-telling, reconciliation, and reparations to establish a foundation for lasting peace.

Human Rights-Based Approaches: These approaches assert that peace and human rights are intertwined. They emphasize the protection of individual rights as a prerequisite for achieving and maintaining peace.

Gandhian Philosophy: Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's principles of non-violence and civil disobedience, this philosophy advocates for peaceful resistance as a means to challenge injustice and oppressive regimes.

Global Governance: Global governance theories explore the role of international institutions, such as the United Nations, in promoting peace and stability at the global level. They propose mechanisms for collective decision-making and conflict resolution.

Conflict Transformation: This approach views conflicts as opportunities for positive change and transformation. It seeks to address the underlying causes of conflicts and create conditions for lasting peace by changing the dynamics between parties involved.

Ethical and Religious Perspectives: Many ethical and religious traditions offer insights into the philosophy of peace. These perspectives often emphasize values such as compassion, forgiveness, and the importance of community in achieving peace.

                                                                                              October 13, 2020 

Last week Tim brought up my podcasting post at the beginning of class. He actually wanted to talk about transitional justice more than he wanted to talk about podcasting, something I was definitely okay with. Since then, I cannot stop thinking about it. A fair warning: this is absurdly long, like way too long, but I’m obsessed with these questions and have been struggling to cut myself off. In all honesty I wanted this to be about 1000 words longer. Transitional justice is one of those topics that has so many unanswerable questions that you fall down a rabbit hole all the time. 

For those reading who aren’t in the class, Tim had asked my opinion on the comments of a French public historian at a conference in 2017 in Bogotá, Columbia. This man had said that following WWII France chose to consign the actions of the Germans and the collaborators to oblivion. They chose to let these issues rest for a couple decades and pick them back up when the wounds had scabbed over. I should be clear, the Frenchman is not the only person to hold this belief, not by a long shot. Individuals, often individuals in power, in every country facing questions of transitional justice have advocated for some form of forgetting. 

This view of transitional justice is outdated and it ignores so much of what transitional justice is. 

Transitional justice is not about criminal justice. Or at least, not entirely. It can certainly be about holding perpetrators accountable for crimes through the legal system; but often that is largely impossible. Here are some examples: in Chile, the former dictator was still head of the military and had threatened attack if anyone was tried; in Rwanda, the number of perpetrators was so large that it overwhelmed the prison system; in South Africa, there was a controversial Amnesty for Truth law that gave perpetrators amnesty if they testified in court. In cases like Argentina, Germany, and Peru successful trials have brought down the very heads of the institutions that committed the crimes but have largely left low-ranking individuals alone. Legal justice is only a small portion of the larger discussion on transitional justice. 

So, what else is there? Well first I’m going to plug my podcast because who would I be if I didn’t? Listen here to hear me talk about an amazing memorial in Paine, Chile. 

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs), the creation of memorials and museums, and reparations are three of the biggest forms of non-legal transitional justice. TRCs are government funded commissions that use oral history and traditional research methods to uncover what happened. They create the state narrative and become the beacon for government work. 

Memorials and museums can be both private and public and can serve the state or serve the people. If you’re interested in this (which I imagine some of you might be) I have a good deal of knowledge on this part of transitional justice particularly in (can you guess?) Chile and also the former USSR, Germany, and Argentina. 

Finally, we have reparations. We might imagine reparations to be cheques handed out once or monthly or yearly to victims or victims’ families. And reparations can be cheques given to individuals, but they can also be sustained investment into infrastructure. This is particularly important when talking about traditionally underserved communities – for example the Mapuche in Chile or, oh would you look at that, Indigenous communities in Canada. This can be controversial because it brings up questions of who you consult about infrastructure changes, how you prioritize issues, and how you split funding (didn’t I tell you, there are tons of unanswerable questions in this field). 

Each of these three methods do not involve the legal system. Instead, they work to rebuild the social fabric of a country in the wake of devastation. They provide truth, memory, and restoration and they provide justice. We just need to reframe what justice means. 

When we think of transitional justice as criminal justice, we imagine the black and white world of a judicial verdict. We imagine that transitional justice will solve everything and make the world whole again. It won’t. It can’t. It never will. Massive human rights violations are irreversible, they tear through lives and communities, social structures and societal ideals. Instead, transitional justice is about holding systems accountable and reforming them; it’s not about the individual who committed the crime, but rather about the system that allowed, accepted, or authorized the crime. 

I really got lost on a tangent there but now you know a little more about what transitional justice looks like on the ground. 

Back to the Frenchman. His argument centres on the idea that talking about recent crimes only serves to re-traumatize victims. He’s not wrong in this idea but his solution is too encompassing. Instead of silence as a national policy, transitional justice allows for silence as a personal choice. All TRCs and trials are self-selected meaning the victim choses to tell their story. This isn’t a perfect solution, but it allows the victim the dignity of choice and the ability to put their own needs first. 

France is a unique case. They could say, “well it’s time to forget what the Germans did to us” (this ignores the roles of collaborators, but it still works). France as a country could project all of the crime onto an ‘other’, who were truly an other because they left. Again, we’re ignoring collaborators. Almost no other country has this option. In Rwanda, when the civil war and genocide subsided, no one left. The same can be said for South Africa, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Peru, Canada and the list could go on forever. So, we need transitional justice to mediate the relationship between the victims and perpetrators as they co-exist in a single society. 

The 1990 National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation Report in Chile explains the need for transitional justice quite well. In the introduction, they wrote “although the truth cannot really in itself dispense justice, it does put an end to many a continued injustice – it does not bring the dead back to life, but it brings them out from silence: for the families of the ‘disappeared,’ the truth about their fate would mean, at last, the end to an anguishing, endless search.” (The National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation Report, “Introduction,” 14.) 

I hope my ramblings on transitional justice have been informative. It’s not perfect, it’s not black and white, but it’s necessary. There is no healing in silence for society, that is an individual choice. Society is not allowed that privilege as the systems that allowed the violence must be held accountable for that violence.

Next week is undecided. Let me know if you have any suggestions for what I write about. 

70th anniversary of the 228 Massacre - In memory of the fallen elites and victims of 228.

Transitional Justice

Trying to interpret transitional justice, I think it is to heal the wounds from the past with the present gentleness.

It's a healing process that gives both the victim and the criminal a chance to formally say good-bye to the past, and therefore be able to look forward. A chance to reborn.

70th anniversary of the 228 Massacre - In memory of the fallen elites and victims of 228.

70th anniversary of the 228 Massacre - In memory of the fallen elites and victims of 228.

I spoke earlier today via Zoom at the opening session of a conference in Pristina on Bridges of Memory: Reconciliation and Transitional Justice in Post-Conflict Societies/Diplomacy, Memory, and Historical Interpretation. Here are the notes I prepared for the occasion: First I apologize to you for appearing remotely. I’d much rather be in Pristina. But I was in the Balkans 10 days ago and will be…

I spent my allotted 40 minutes yesterday with Kosovo’s former President Hashim Thaci at the international section of the Dutch penitentiary in The Hague yesterday. I wanted to renew an old friendship. It is well-known in Kosovo that he and I had a falling out shortly before he voluntarily went to The Hague to stand trial. I also wanted to get a better sense of the reality behind the Kosovo…