相互共谋、国家无关和恢复性司法:Dagbon的未来急需王室的相互宽恕

Q2 Social Sciences Contemporary Justice Review Pub Date : 2020-09-29 DOI:10.1080/10282580.2020.1819805
M. H. A. Bolaji
{"title":"相互共谋、国家无关和恢复性司法:Dagbon的未来急需王室的相互宽恕","authors":"M. H. A. Bolaji","doi":"10.1080/10282580.2020.1819805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article is a phenomenological account of the grievances that the two royal gates openly express as the main issues that have cumulatively shaped the conflict and which may decide the future contours of the conflict. It relies on the findings from the qualitative interviews conducted with the key protagonists of each gate, their sympathizers, and the custodians of the kingdom. Having acknowledged the intractability of the conflict and its complications, it explains the study’s methodology and the colonial roots of the conflict. The article also analyses how the post-colonial state mismanaged the Dagbon crisis with its centralist intrusions. Moreover, it reviews the literature on restorative justice highlighting its conceptualisation, dimensions, relevance, status vis-à-vis the criminal justice system, and its challenges in conflict resolution. Also, it explores the core grievances of the two royal gates in the light of cultural interpretations and the apparent contradictions. Furthermore, while it investigates the prospects of a traditional dispute resolution mechanism in a bid to restore justice and set the kingdom on the path of sustainable peacebuilding, it questions the excitement that accompanied the 2019 instalment of a new Yaa-Naa and warns about the dangers of a politically motivated conflict settlement that may backfire.","PeriodicalId":10583,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Justice Review","volume":"24 1","pages":"218 - 244"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10282580.2020.1819805","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mutual complicity, state irrelevance, and restorative justice: Dagbon’s future in dire need of reciprocal royal forgiveness\",\"authors\":\"M. H. A. Bolaji\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10282580.2020.1819805\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article is a phenomenological account of the grievances that the two royal gates openly express as the main issues that have cumulatively shaped the conflict and which may decide the future contours of the conflict. It relies on the findings from the qualitative interviews conducted with the key protagonists of each gate, their sympathizers, and the custodians of the kingdom. Having acknowledged the intractability of the conflict and its complications, it explains the study’s methodology and the colonial roots of the conflict. The article also analyses how the post-colonial state mismanaged the Dagbon crisis with its centralist intrusions. Moreover, it reviews the literature on restorative justice highlighting its conceptualisation, dimensions, relevance, status vis-à-vis the criminal justice system, and its challenges in conflict resolution. Also, it explores the core grievances of the two royal gates in the light of cultural interpretations and the apparent contradictions. Furthermore, while it investigates the prospects of a traditional dispute resolution mechanism in a bid to restore justice and set the kingdom on the path of sustainable peacebuilding, it questions the excitement that accompanied the 2019 instalment of a new Yaa-Naa and warns about the dangers of a politically motivated conflict settlement that may backfire.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Justice Review\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"218 - 244\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10282580.2020.1819805\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Justice Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2020.1819805\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Justice Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2020.1819805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文从现象学的角度描述了两个王室大门公开表达的不满,这些不满是累积形成冲突的主要问题,并可能决定冲突的未来轮廓。它依赖于对每个大门的关键人物、他们的同情者和王国的守护者进行的定性采访的结果。在承认冲突的棘手性及其复杂性后,它解释了该研究的方法和冲突的殖民根源。文章还分析了后殖民国家如何通过中央集权主义的入侵来管理达邦危机。此外,它还审查了关于恢复性司法的文献,强调了其概念、层面、相关性、相对于刑事司法系统的地位及其在解决冲突方面的挑战。同时,从文化阐释和明显矛盾的角度,探讨了两个王门的核心恩怨。此外,尽管它调查了传统争端解决机制的前景,以恢复正义,使沙特走上可持续建设和平的道路,但它质疑2019年新的《亚亚纳法》所带来的兴奋,并警告说,出于政治动机的冲突解决方案可能会适得其反。
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
Mutual complicity, state irrelevance, and restorative justice: Dagbon’s future in dire need of reciprocal royal forgiveness
ABSTRACT This article is a phenomenological account of the grievances that the two royal gates openly express as the main issues that have cumulatively shaped the conflict and which may decide the future contours of the conflict. It relies on the findings from the qualitative interviews conducted with the key protagonists of each gate, their sympathizers, and the custodians of the kingdom. Having acknowledged the intractability of the conflict and its complications, it explains the study’s methodology and the colonial roots of the conflict. The article also analyses how the post-colonial state mismanaged the Dagbon crisis with its centralist intrusions. Moreover, it reviews the literature on restorative justice highlighting its conceptualisation, dimensions, relevance, status vis-à-vis the criminal justice system, and its challenges in conflict resolution. Also, it explores the core grievances of the two royal gates in the light of cultural interpretations and the apparent contradictions. Furthermore, while it investigates the prospects of a traditional dispute resolution mechanism in a bid to restore justice and set the kingdom on the path of sustainable peacebuilding, it questions the excitement that accompanied the 2019 instalment of a new Yaa-Naa and warns about the dangers of a politically motivated conflict settlement that may backfire.
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
Contemporary Justice Review
Contemporary Justice Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Cultivating just campus communities: engaging university students in developing restorative justice alternatives Defining restorative justice: a perspective from England and Wales’s further education sector The agricultural prison industry: a scoping review The international criminal court and responsibility for mass atrocities: can JCE enhance capacity to hold masterminds accountable? Restorative justice for adult offenders in South Australia: judicial perspectives and insights
×
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