超越“触发器”的真相:道德问责、过渡司法和法律真相的局限

IF 1.7 1区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Journal of Transitional Justice Pub Date : 2021-08-01 DOI:10.1093/ijtj/ijab024
Kevin Hearty
{"title":"超越“触发器”的真相:道德问责、过渡司法和法律真相的局限","authors":"Kevin Hearty","doi":"10.1093/ijtj/ijab024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article critically examines how existing truth recovery processes have, and how proposed truth recovery processes might, address the issue of shoot-to-kill in Northern Ireland. In contrast to ongoing legacy case prosecutions of British Army veterans, it argues that truth recovery processes should adopt a maximalist conceptualization of truth and responsibility. This, it is argued, necessitates differentiating between legal truth and structural truth, and between legal, political and moral responsibility. It is further submitted that such an approach would reflect the importance of identifying and understanding patterns (looking at similar cases collectively) and context (looking at the socio-political-legal backdrop to them) when establishing the ‘broad circumstances’ around disputed killings. This approach would allow truth recovery to advance beyond low-level ‘trigger pullers’ to ensure ‘moral accountability’ for the complicity of other actors within the state apparatus.","PeriodicalId":46927,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Transitional Justice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Truth Beyond the ‘Trigger Puller’: Moral Accountability, Transitional (In)Justice and the Limitations of Legal Truth\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Hearty\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijtj/ijab024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article critically examines how existing truth recovery processes have, and how proposed truth recovery processes might, address the issue of shoot-to-kill in Northern Ireland. In contrast to ongoing legacy case prosecutions of British Army veterans, it argues that truth recovery processes should adopt a maximalist conceptualization of truth and responsibility. This, it is argued, necessitates differentiating between legal truth and structural truth, and between legal, political and moral responsibility. It is further submitted that such an approach would reflect the importance of identifying and understanding patterns (looking at similar cases collectively) and context (looking at the socio-political-legal backdrop to them) when establishing the ‘broad circumstances’ around disputed killings. This approach would allow truth recovery to advance beyond low-level ‘trigger pullers’ to ensure ‘moral accountability’ for the complicity of other actors within the state apparatus.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Transitional Justice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Transitional Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijab024\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Transitional Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijab024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇文章批判性地研究了现有的真相恢复程序是如何解决北爱尔兰的枪杀问题的,以及拟议的真相恢复过程可能是如何解决的。与正在进行的对英国退伍军人的遗留案件起诉相反,它认为真相恢复过程应该采用对真相和责任的最大化概念。有人认为,这就需要区分法律真相和结构真相,以及法律、政治和道德责任。据进一步提交,这种方法将反映出在确定有争议的杀人事件的“广泛情况”时,识别和理解模式(集体看待类似案件)和背景(看待其社会政治法律背景)的重要性。这种方法将使真相恢复超越低级的“触发者”,以确保对国家机构内其他行为者的共谋行为承担“道德责任”。
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 Beyond the ‘Trigger Puller’: Moral Accountability, Transitional (In)Justice and the Limitations of Legal Truth
This article critically examines how existing truth recovery processes have, and how proposed truth recovery processes might, address the issue of shoot-to-kill in Northern Ireland. In contrast to ongoing legacy case prosecutions of British Army veterans, it argues that truth recovery processes should adopt a maximalist conceptualization of truth and responsibility. This, it is argued, necessitates differentiating between legal truth and structural truth, and between legal, political and moral responsibility. It is further submitted that such an approach would reflect the importance of identifying and understanding patterns (looking at similar cases collectively) and context (looking at the socio-political-legal backdrop to them) when establishing the ‘broad circumstances’ around disputed killings. This approach would allow truth recovery to advance beyond low-level ‘trigger pullers’ to ensure ‘moral accountability’ for the complicity of other actors within the state apparatus.
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
3.30
自引率
31.20%
发文量
37
期刊最新文献
Imagining Collective Reincorporation: Perceptions of Colombia’s Novel Approach to Peacebuilding Decolonizing Transitional Justice: Soft, Radical or Beyond Reform Re-Politicizing the Traumatic Body through Art: Guillermo Núñez, Ariel Dorfman and the Political Transition in Chile Human Rights Activism and Transitional Justice Advocacy in Northern Ireland Remembering Martial Law: An Eco-System of Truth Initiatives and the Emergence of Narrative Documentation in the Philippines
×
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