过渡司法后的和解:当起诉不够时,波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那的案例

IF 0.9 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Croatian International Relations Review Pub Date : 2019-04-01 DOI:10.2478/cirr-2019-0003
Jared O. Bell
{"title":"过渡司法后的和解:当起诉不够时,波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那的案例","authors":"Jared O. Bell","doi":"10.2478/cirr-2019-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The concept and study of transitional justice has grown exponentially over the last decades. Since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after the end of the Second World War, there have been a number of attempts made across the globe to achieve justice for human rights violations (International Peace Institute 2013: 10). How these attempts at achieving justice impact whether or not societies reconcile, continues to be one of the key discussions taking place in a transitional justice discourse. One particular context where this debate continues to rage on is in Bosnia and Herzegovina, many scholars argue that the transitional justice process and mechanism employed in Bosnia and Herzegovina have not fostered inter-group reconciliation, but in fact caused more divisions. To this end, this article explores the context of transitional justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina from a unique perspective that focuses on the need for reconciliation and healing after transitional justice processes like war crime prosecutions. This article explores why the prosecuting of war criminals has not fostered reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and how the processes have divided Bosnian society further. Additionally, this article presents the idea of state-sponsored dialog sessions as a way of dealing with the past and moving beyond the divisions of retributive justice.","PeriodicalId":35243,"journal":{"name":"Croatian International Relations Review","volume":"25 1","pages":"54 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconciling after Transitional Justice: When Prosecutions are not Enough, the Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina\",\"authors\":\"Jared O. Bell\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/cirr-2019-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The concept and study of transitional justice has grown exponentially over the last decades. Since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after the end of the Second World War, there have been a number of attempts made across the globe to achieve justice for human rights violations (International Peace Institute 2013: 10). How these attempts at achieving justice impact whether or not societies reconcile, continues to be one of the key discussions taking place in a transitional justice discourse. One particular context where this debate continues to rage on is in Bosnia and Herzegovina, many scholars argue that the transitional justice process and mechanism employed in Bosnia and Herzegovina have not fostered inter-group reconciliation, but in fact caused more divisions. To this end, this article explores the context of transitional justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina from a unique perspective that focuses on the need for reconciliation and healing after transitional justice processes like war crime prosecutions. This article explores why the prosecuting of war criminals has not fostered reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and how the processes have divided Bosnian society further. Additionally, this article presents the idea of state-sponsored dialog sessions as a way of dealing with the past and moving beyond the divisions of retributive justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Croatian International Relations Review\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"54 - 77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Croatian International Relations Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/cirr-2019-0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian International Relations Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/cirr-2019-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在过去的几十年里,过渡时期司法的概念和研究呈指数级增长。自第二次世界大战结束后的纽伦堡和东京审判以来,全球为实现侵犯人权行为的正义进行了许多尝试(国际和平研究所2013:10)。这些实现正义的尝试如何影响社会是否和解,仍然是过渡时期司法话语中正在进行的关键讨论之一。这种辩论继续激烈进行的一个特殊情况是在波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那,许多学者认为,波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那采用的过渡时期司法程序和机制并没有促进群体间的和解,实际上造成了更多的分裂。为此,本文从一个独特的角度探讨了波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那过渡时期司法的背景,重点关注战争罪起诉等过渡时期司法程序后的和解与治愈需求。本文探讨了为什么起诉战犯没有促进波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那的和解,以及这一进程如何进一步分裂了波斯尼亚社会。此外,本文还提出了由国家发起的对话会议作为一种处理过去和超越报复性正义分歧的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reconciling after Transitional Justice: When Prosecutions are not Enough, the Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Abstract The concept and study of transitional justice has grown exponentially over the last decades. Since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after the end of the Second World War, there have been a number of attempts made across the globe to achieve justice for human rights violations (International Peace Institute 2013: 10). How these attempts at achieving justice impact whether or not societies reconcile, continues to be one of the key discussions taking place in a transitional justice discourse. One particular context where this debate continues to rage on is in Bosnia and Herzegovina, many scholars argue that the transitional justice process and mechanism employed in Bosnia and Herzegovina have not fostered inter-group reconciliation, but in fact caused more divisions. To this end, this article explores the context of transitional justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina from a unique perspective that focuses on the need for reconciliation and healing after transitional justice processes like war crime prosecutions. This article explores why the prosecuting of war criminals has not fostered reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and how the processes have divided Bosnian society further. Additionally, this article presents the idea of state-sponsored dialog sessions as a way of dealing with the past and moving beyond the divisions of retributive justice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Croatian International Relations Review
Croatian International Relations Review Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: The Croatian International Relations Review (CIRR) is an interdisciplinary academic journal published in English since 1995 and focuses on political science, sociology, law and economics. Each issue includes scholarly, double-blind peer reviewed articles, and book reviews. CIRR is a member of COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics – and is published electronically by the Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO) in Zagreb. The journal is supported by the Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia and is published in collaboration with De Gruyter Open, the world’s second largest publisher of Open Access academic content. CIRR is indexed by 40 scholarly databases, including ESCI, Scopus, Erih Plus, EconLit and Proquest Social Science Premium Collection. Articles reflect the views of their authors only.
期刊最新文献
Measuring the Success of the Presidency of the Council of the EU The Significance of Foreign Military Bases as Instruments of Spheres of Influence How do Lithuanian Citizens Perceive the European Parliament? EU Legitimacy Issue and Trust in the European Parliament On the Norms and Habits of the European Union as a Meta-organisation The Challenges to the Emergency Medical Services to be Recognised as a Human Right in International Human Rights Law
×
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