真相委员会对政策、法院和社会的影响

O. Bakiner
{"title":"真相委员会对政策、法院和社会的影响","authors":"O. Bakiner","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-010000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This review surveys the philosophical underpinnings, conceptual frames, and methodological choices informing the scholarship on truth commission impact to examine whether, how, how much, and why truth commissions influence policy, court decisions, and social norms. It focuses on three areas: ( a) truth commission impact as the product of complex interactions between politicians, civil society activists, and truth commissions; ( b) conceptual and methodological debates and disagreements in studies of impact; and ( c) normative visions guiding expectations and assessments. The findings of empirical scholarship range from partial confirmation of bold and at times vague expectations to damning accounts of commissions’ failure to deliver. In addition to conceptual and methodological choices, scholars’ normative assumptions and expectations also explain divergent accounts of truth commission impact. Three sets of normative frameworks set the expectations in particular: building liberal democratic institutions; transforming socioeconomic, gendered, and racialized hierarchies; and reflecting local values, norms, and power dynamics.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Truth Commission Impact on Policy, Courts, and Society\",\"authors\":\"O. Bakiner\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-010000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This review surveys the philosophical underpinnings, conceptual frames, and methodological choices informing the scholarship on truth commission impact to examine whether, how, how much, and why truth commissions influence policy, court decisions, and social norms. It focuses on three areas: ( a) truth commission impact as the product of complex interactions between politicians, civil society activists, and truth commissions; ( b) conceptual and methodological debates and disagreements in studies of impact; and ( c) normative visions guiding expectations and assessments. The findings of empirical scholarship range from partial confirmation of bold and at times vague expectations to damning accounts of commissions’ failure to deliver. In addition to conceptual and methodological choices, scholars’ normative assumptions and expectations also explain divergent accounts of truth commission impact. Three sets of normative frameworks set the expectations in particular: building liberal democratic institutions; transforming socioeconomic, gendered, and racialized hierarchies; and reflecting local values, norms, and power dynamics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Law and Social Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Law and Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-010000\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111620-010000","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇综述调查了真相委员会影响学术的哲学基础、概念框架和方法选择,以考察真相委员会是否、如何、在多大程度上以及为什么影响政策、法院裁决和社会规范。它侧重于三个领域:(a)真相委员会的影响是政治家、民间社会活动家和真相委员会之间复杂互动的产物;(b)影响研究中的概念和方法辩论以及分歧;以及(c)指导期望和评估的规范性愿景。实证研究的结果包括对大胆的、有时是模糊的预期的部分确认,以及对委员会未能兑现承诺的谴责。除了概念和方法上的选择,学者们的规范性假设和期望也解释了对真相委员会影响的不同解释。三套规范性框架特别提出了期望:建立自由民主体制;改变社会经济、性别和种族等级制度;反映地方价值观、规范和权力动态。
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
Truth Commission Impact on Policy, Courts, and Society
This review surveys the philosophical underpinnings, conceptual frames, and methodological choices informing the scholarship on truth commission impact to examine whether, how, how much, and why truth commissions influence policy, court decisions, and social norms. It focuses on three areas: ( a) truth commission impact as the product of complex interactions between politicians, civil society activists, and truth commissions; ( b) conceptual and methodological debates and disagreements in studies of impact; and ( c) normative visions guiding expectations and assessments. The findings of empirical scholarship range from partial confirmation of bold and at times vague expectations to damning accounts of commissions’ failure to deliver. In addition to conceptual and methodological choices, scholars’ normative assumptions and expectations also explain divergent accounts of truth commission impact. Three sets of normative frameworks set the expectations in particular: building liberal democratic institutions; transforming socioeconomic, gendered, and racialized hierarchies; and reflecting local values, norms, and power dynamics.
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Bankruptcy Law's Knowns and Unknowns Centering Race in Studies of Low-Wage Immigrant Labor Authoritarian Legality and State Capitalism in China Mandatory Employment Arbitration How to Study Global Lawmaking: Lessons from Intellectual Property Rights and International Health Emergencies
×
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