Dynamics of Transitional Justice Sample Clauses

Dynamics of Transitional Justice i. The double beginning of Transitional Justice Due to the emphasis on responding to human right violations of repressive predecessor regimes, Transitional Justice in practice largely begins after a change in regime and responds to the actions of a previous regime, which may or may not correspond to a period of armed conflict. That is, the practice of Transitional Justice tends to begin after a change in regime, or at least a dramatic political shift. The subject of that practice, however, is largely focused on responding to the acts taken in the previous regime. Transitional Justice thus tends to have a double beginning – the subject matter (or referent) and the response to the subject matter. The first beginning occurs during the repressive predecessor regime, the second begins during the succeeding, presumably non- repressive, regime. There are, of course, potential complications with the working guideline above. One critical complication is the ever-present, heated question of amnesty for violations of human rights committed before the peace agreement is signed. Transitional Justice practitioners, whether they are external or domestic, are certainly interested in whether such amnesties are included in these peace agreements. Whether or not that interest makes the negotiation of peace agreements part of an intellectually coherent phenomenon called “Transitional Justice” is somewhat doubtful, however. Including this within the ambit of “Transitional Justice” deviates from the definition given by its practitioners “conception of justice associated with periods of political change, characterized by legal responses to confront the wrongdoings of repressive predecessor regimes.” 90 It is important to emphasize that despite the blanketing rhetoric against “amnesty” and a “culture of impunity,” a rhetoric driven by valid human rights concerns, certain amnesties are not only permitted, but also suggested by the laws of armed conflict. The most obvious case is when someone has participated in the conflict as a legal combatant under international humanitarian law, but his or her participation is considered illegal under domestic law (either directly or through criminalizing activities such as carrying arms.) Article 10.1 of Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, to take a more specific example, forbids punishment of ethical medical care even if it supports an insurgency: “Under no circumstances shall any person be punished for having carried out medica...