After Arusha: Gacaca Justice in Post-Genocide Rwanda

Q3 Social Sciences African Studies Quarterly Pub Date : 2004-09-22 DOI:10.14288/1.0091268
A. Tiemessen
{"title":"After Arusha: Gacaca Justice in Post-Genocide Rwanda","authors":"A. Tiemessen","doi":"10.14288/1.0091268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The epicentre of post-genocide Rwandan society and politics has been the need for reconciliation to assuage ethnic tensions and end a culture of impunity. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has yet to meet its goal of reconciliation in Rwanda: The failure of the tribunal goes beyond its institutional shortcomings and can be attributed the norms of international criminal law that render it an inappropriate response to criminalizing mass violence. The Gacaca courts were resurrected in Rwanda as an indigenous form of restorative justice. The principles and process of these courts hope to mitigate the failures of \"Arusha Justice\" at the tribunal and seeks to punish or reintegrate over one hundred thousands genocide suspects. Its restorative foundations require that suspects will be tried and judged by neighbours in their community. However, the revelation that Gacaca is a reconciliatory justice does not preclude its potential for inciting ethnic tension it if purports to serve as an instrument of Tutsi power. The state-imposed approach of command justice has politicised the identity of the participants in Gacaca -- perpetrators remain Hutus and victims and survivors remain Tutsis. Additionally, the refusal of the Kagame government to allow for the prosecution of RPF crimes to be tried in Gacaca courts empowers the notion that Tutsi survival is preconditioned by Tutsi power and impunity. If Gacaca fails to end the perceptions of impunity in post-genocide Rwanda, it will come at a much higher cost for reconciliation than the failure of the ICTR. The relevance of justice after genocide speaks to the appropriateness of retributive and restorative models of justice in a post-genocide society such as Rwanda. Additionally, the model of justice must be reconciled to the nature of a political regime that imposes unity under an ethnocratic minority.","PeriodicalId":35848,"journal":{"name":"African Studies Quarterly","volume":"29 1","pages":"57-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"116","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0091268","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 116

Abstract

The epicentre of post-genocide Rwandan society and politics has been the need for reconciliation to assuage ethnic tensions and end a culture of impunity. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has yet to meet its goal of reconciliation in Rwanda: The failure of the tribunal goes beyond its institutional shortcomings and can be attributed the norms of international criminal law that render it an inappropriate response to criminalizing mass violence. The Gacaca courts were resurrected in Rwanda as an indigenous form of restorative justice. The principles and process of these courts hope to mitigate the failures of "Arusha Justice" at the tribunal and seeks to punish or reintegrate over one hundred thousands genocide suspects. Its restorative foundations require that suspects will be tried and judged by neighbours in their community. However, the revelation that Gacaca is a reconciliatory justice does not preclude its potential for inciting ethnic tension it if purports to serve as an instrument of Tutsi power. The state-imposed approach of command justice has politicised the identity of the participants in Gacaca -- perpetrators remain Hutus and victims and survivors remain Tutsis. Additionally, the refusal of the Kagame government to allow for the prosecution of RPF crimes to be tried in Gacaca courts empowers the notion that Tutsi survival is preconditioned by Tutsi power and impunity. If Gacaca fails to end the perceptions of impunity in post-genocide Rwanda, it will come at a much higher cost for reconciliation than the failure of the ICTR. The relevance of justice after genocide speaks to the appropriateness of retributive and restorative models of justice in a post-genocide society such as Rwanda. Additionally, the model of justice must be reconciled to the nature of a political regime that imposes unity under an ethnocratic minority.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阿鲁沙之后:种族灭绝后卢旺达的加卡卡司法
种族灭绝后卢旺达社会和政治的中心是需要进行和解,以缓和种族紧张局势和结束有罪不罚的文化。卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭(卢旺达问题国际法庭)尚未实现其在卢旺达实现和解的目标:该法庭的失败超出了其体制上的缺点,并可归因于使其对将大规模暴力定为犯罪行为作出不适当反应的国际刑法准则。加卡卡法院作为一种土著形式的恢复性司法在卢旺达复活。这些法院的原则和程序希望减轻“阿鲁沙司法”在法庭上的失败,并设法惩罚或重新安置十万多名种族灭绝嫌疑犯。其恢复性基础要求嫌疑犯将由其社区的邻居审判和评判。然而,揭露Gacaca是一个和解的司法机构并不排除它煽动种族紧张关系的可能性,因为它自称是图西族权力的工具。国家强制执行的指挥司法方法使加卡卡事件参与者的身份政治化——肇事者仍然是胡图族人,受害者和幸存者仍然是图西族人。此外,卡加梅政府拒绝允许在加卡法院审判卢旺达爱国阵线的罪行,这使人们认为图西族的生存是以图西族的权力和有罪不罚为先决条件的。如果《加卡卡》不能结束卢旺达种族灭绝后有罪不罚的观念,那么它将比卢旺达问题国际法庭的失败付出更大的和解代价。种族灭绝后正义的相关性说明了在卢旺达这样的种族灭绝后社会中采取报复性和恢复性司法模式的适当性。此外,正义模式必须与在少数民族统治下实行统一的政治制度的性质相调和。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
African Studies Quarterly
African Studies Quarterly Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Kate Skinner. 2015. the Fruits of Freedom in British Togoland: Literacy, Politics and Nationalism, 1914-2014 Femi Osofisan. 2016. the Muse of Anomy: Essays on Literature and the Humanities in Nigeria Kurt Mills. 2015. International Responses to Mass Atrocities in Africa: Responsibility to Protect, Prosecute, and Palliate Carol Anderson. 2015. Bourgeois Radicals: The NAACP and the Struggle for Colonial Liberation, 1941-1960 Steven Friedman. 2015. Race, Class, and Power: Harold Wolpe and the Radical Critique of Apartheid
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1