Transitional Justice Sample Clauses

Transitional Justice. 19.1. Without prejudice to what has been agreed in negotiation tracks, the Parties agree to accord the issue of transitional justice the utmost priority and to form a Transitional Justice Commission within thirty (30) days of the date of signing the peace agreement with the signatory parties to this agreement, provided that transitional justice mechanisms encompass all of Sudan, particularly the conflict areas.

Transitional Justice. How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes (Washington: USIP, 1995).

Transitional Justice. How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes, Volume I. General Considerations (Washington: United States Institute of Peace, 1995). While the term “transitional justice” was coined some twenty years ago, it has been argued that transitional justice did not coalesce as a distinct “field” until sometime after 2000. See Xxxxx Xxxxxx, “How ‘Transitions’ Reshaped Human Rights: A Conceptual History of Transitional Justice,” Human Rights Quarterly 31, no. 2 (2009): 329-32 (tracing the history of the use of the term “transitional justice”); Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx, “Transitional Justice, Interdisciplinarity and the State of the ‘Field’ or ‘Non-Field,’” International Journal of Transitional Justice 3 (2009): 7 (arguing that transitional justice did not emerge as a distinct field until after 2000).

Transitional Justice. How Emerging Democracies Reckon With Former Regimes, US Institute of Peace Press (1995), p. 114. a new regime is well under way105 or pressure for Transitional Justice mechanisms may be weak.106 It can take years, even decades, for the practice of Transitional Justice to begin. One contemporary example is the controversy rather regarding the response to human rights violations during the 1936-1975 Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx dictatorship in Spain. Decades later, it is unclear whether the proper beginning of Transitional Justice in Spain is still effectively in the future. Another, arguably more complex example is in post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Between 1975 and 1979, the Democratic Kampuchea regime murdered millions through forced labor, starvation and execution. Among many others, the jurists of Cambodia were killed. An estimated six to ten legal professionals survived.107 The Democratic Kampuchea regime’s crimes eradicated the institutions and people who could normally attempt to address those injustices through criminal law. In 1979 Vietnam reacted to a pattern of atrocities by the Khmer Rouge in Vietnam along the border and occupied the country. The new regime held a trial in absentia for the top Khmer Rouge leaders, Xxx Xxx and Xxxx Xxxx. A new government was set up by 1981, but the international community largely refused to recognize it. Cambodia remained plagued by guerrilla warfare. Hundreds of thousands of people became refugees. The mass movement represented by the “National Front” (“Renakse”) included mass membership 105 Ibid 106 Ibid.‌ 107 Rebuilding Cambodia: human resources, human rights, and law: three essays by Xxxxxxx

Transitional Justice. The term is rooted in political transitions of Latin American and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, with the term “transition” emphasizing the change from authoritarian rule to democracy.131 Xxxxxx links the withdrawal of support from the USSR to guerilla forces in the late 1970s to the eventual end of military rule in South America.132 The transitions in Eastern Europe after 1989 were obviously tied to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Transitional Justice, as a concept, cannot be understood without reference to the domestic political transition. As a historical phenomenon, it cannot be understood without reference to international power politics and foreign relations. Xxxxxx suggests that the phase of post-Cold War Transitional Justice has been replaced with a new phase associated with globalization and heightened political instability.133 A full exposition of the history of Transitional Justice is outside the scope of this chapter, but even a brief look at its history emphasizes the point emphasized by the International Center for Transitional Justice that Transitional Justice “is not a special form of justice but justice adapted to societies transforming themselves after a period of pervasive human rights abuse.”134 131 International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), “What is Transitional Justice” available at xxxx://xxxx.xxx/about/transitional-justice (accessed 27 May 2016); see also Xxxx Xxxx, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post- Communist Europe (Xxxxx Xxxxxxx University Press 1996); Xxxxxxxx X’Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, and Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies Vol. 4 (Xxxxx Xxxxxxx University Press 1986). 132 Xxxxxx, “Transitional Justice Genealogy” 71. 133 Xxxxxx, “Transitional Justice Genealogy” 71.‌ 134 International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), “What is Transitional Justice” available at xxxx://xxxx.xxx/about/transitional-justice (accessed 27 May 2016).

Transitional Justice. How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes (1995), i. 49 Ibid. One study of transformative justice observes: Transformative justice must be driven by the needs of participants. Decisions on how to resolve the conflict ought to be based on a consensus. By consensus, we mean an agreement on how to move forward that is acceptable to all parties. A consensus cannot be imposed. Nor is a consensus just a middle ground position. The goal will be to find common ground on which a mutually acceptable resolution can be established. This is the power of transformative justice: the possibility of using the substance of a conflict as a means of exploring options and establishing responses that are not only acceptable to all parties but develop and strengthen relationships among those involved.50 Thought about carefully, transformative justice seems to best describe the overall operation of the WTO Agreement. It explains the centrality of MFN, the shape of dis- pute settlement, the insistence on consensus and so forth. It also explains the reflexive relationship between dispute settlement and negotiation evident in such documents as the WTO Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.51 Finally, it explains the nature of obligations that are being applied to transform trading relationships into deeper networks of interdependence. The result of this system of justice is something of a via media. This outcome is most evident in the treaty’s integration of future- and past-oriented perspectives into a present-based consciousness concerned with the protection of interdependence. Like- wise, the relevant kinetic perspective is diachronic. The sum of its references is the idea of law as a condition. In this environment WTO obligations are erga omnes partes. They are predominately collective, but they must also accommodate certain realities and therefore occasionally assume a bilateral appearance. This blend produces obli- gations that are plurilateral when considered in the larger scheme of things. And whereas obligations that are predominately collective or bilateral could be regarded as either constitutional or contractual, the applicable way of describing the WTO Agreement as a body of law is as lex specialis. I will return to this idea below. All of these points illustrate that what is manifested under the WTO Agreement is a dialectic, that is, a process involving thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The thesis is one of collectivity as expressed in collective obligations...