研讨会回应

IF 2.2 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Nonprofit Policy Forum Pub Date : 2021-12-08 DOI:10.1515/npf-2021-0063
Kirsten A. Grønbjerg, Steven Rathgeb Smith
{"title":"研讨会回应","authors":"Kirsten A. Grønbjerg, Steven Rathgeb Smith","doi":"10.1515/npf-2021-0063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is a great honor and pleasure to have my book as the subject of this review symposium and to benefit from the extremely thoughtful remarks of the group of scholars included here, each a major author on the theme of transitional justice. Each scholar brings a wealth of research and experience to the subject from a diverse perspective. The comments are too rich and varied for me to do justice to all of them in my response, but I hope to address some of the major points of each reviewer. In particular, I will address issues about (1) the policy scope of the book, (2) methods of comparison, (3) data concerns, and (4) processes of historical change. First, on policy scope, Bronwyn Anne Leebaw points out correctly that I do not intend the book to be a history or analysis of the entire field of transitional justice, but rather a comprehensive but focused account of a central transitional justice mechanism—prosecutions for individual criminal accountability. To do a history of the emergence and spread of this single transitional justice mechanism, as well as a systematic analysis of its effectiveness, was already a huge challenge. As Leslie Vinjamuri notes, I do not argue that prosecutions are more or less popular or effective than other transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions, reparations, or amnesties. Leebaw persuasively reminds us that activists themselves have had long and continuing debates about the role and limits of legalism, something she has explored eloquently in her own work.1 These debates about the limits of legalism were often couched as debates about the advantages of alternative transitional justice mechanisms. While I did not make these debates a central focus on the book, I try to address them at times. Since it is impossible to present in the book even a fraction of the number of those who worked for accountability, the stories of a few actors stand in for the countless individuals and groups who work for justice. Thus I present skeptical arguments about justice by respected colleagues and friends like José Zalaquett or Ellen Lutz, in the","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review Symposium Response\",\"authors\":\"Kirsten A. Grønbjerg, Steven Rathgeb Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/npf-2021-0063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is a great honor and pleasure to have my book as the subject of this review symposium and to benefit from the extremely thoughtful remarks of the group of scholars included here, each a major author on the theme of transitional justice. Each scholar brings a wealth of research and experience to the subject from a diverse perspective. The comments are too rich and varied for me to do justice to all of them in my response, but I hope to address some of the major points of each reviewer. In particular, I will address issues about (1) the policy scope of the book, (2) methods of comparison, (3) data concerns, and (4) processes of historical change. First, on policy scope, Bronwyn Anne Leebaw points out correctly that I do not intend the book to be a history or analysis of the entire field of transitional justice, but rather a comprehensive but focused account of a central transitional justice mechanism—prosecutions for individual criminal accountability. To do a history of the emergence and spread of this single transitional justice mechanism, as well as a systematic analysis of its effectiveness, was already a huge challenge. As Leslie Vinjamuri notes, I do not argue that prosecutions are more or less popular or effective than other transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions, reparations, or amnesties. Leebaw persuasively reminds us that activists themselves have had long and continuing debates about the role and limits of legalism, something she has explored eloquently in her own work.1 These debates about the limits of legalism were often couched as debates about the advantages of alternative transitional justice mechanisms. While I did not make these debates a central focus on the book, I try to address them at times. Since it is impossible to present in the book even a fraction of the number of those who worked for accountability, the stories of a few actors stand in for the countless individuals and groups who work for justice. Thus I present skeptical arguments about justice by respected colleagues and friends like José Zalaquett or Ellen Lutz, in the\",\"PeriodicalId\":44152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nonprofit Policy Forum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nonprofit Policy Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0063\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我很荣幸也很高兴能以我的书作为这次回顾研讨会的主题,并从在座的学者们非常有思想的评论中获益,他们都是研究过渡时期司法的主要作者。每位学者都从不同的角度为这一主题带来了丰富的研究和经验。这些评论太过丰富和多样,我无法在我的回复中公正地对待他们,但我希望解决每个评论者的一些主要观点。特别是,我将解决以下问题:(1)本书的政策范围,(2)比较方法,(3)数据关注,(4)历史变化过程。首先,在政策范围上,布朗温·安妮·利保正确地指出,我并不打算把这本书作为对整个过渡时期司法领域的历史或分析,而是对过渡时期司法的核心机制——对个人刑事责任的起诉——进行全面而集中的描述。要对这一单一的过渡时期司法机制的产生和传播进行历史研究,并对其有效性进行系统分析,已经是一项巨大的挑战。正如Leslie Vinjamuri所指出的,我并不认为起诉比其他过渡性司法机制(如真相委员会、赔偿或特赦)更受欢迎或更有效。李宝很有说服力地提醒我们,激进分子自己也对法律主义的作用和局限性进行了长期而持续的辩论,这是她在自己的作品中雄辩地探讨过的这些关于法律主义局限性的辩论常常被粉饰成关于替代性过渡司法机制优势的辩论。虽然我没有把这些争论作为本书的中心焦点,但我有时会尝试解决这些问题。因为在这本书中不可能呈现那些为问责而努力的人的一小部分,所以少数演员的故事代表了无数为正义而努力的个人和团体。因此,我提出了对正义持怀疑态度的论点,这些论点是由受人尊敬的同事和朋友,如约瑟夫·扎拉奎特或艾伦·卢茨,在
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
Review Symposium Response
It is a great honor and pleasure to have my book as the subject of this review symposium and to benefit from the extremely thoughtful remarks of the group of scholars included here, each a major author on the theme of transitional justice. Each scholar brings a wealth of research and experience to the subject from a diverse perspective. The comments are too rich and varied for me to do justice to all of them in my response, but I hope to address some of the major points of each reviewer. In particular, I will address issues about (1) the policy scope of the book, (2) methods of comparison, (3) data concerns, and (4) processes of historical change. First, on policy scope, Bronwyn Anne Leebaw points out correctly that I do not intend the book to be a history or analysis of the entire field of transitional justice, but rather a comprehensive but focused account of a central transitional justice mechanism—prosecutions for individual criminal accountability. To do a history of the emergence and spread of this single transitional justice mechanism, as well as a systematic analysis of its effectiveness, was already a huge challenge. As Leslie Vinjamuri notes, I do not argue that prosecutions are more or less popular or effective than other transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions, reparations, or amnesties. Leebaw persuasively reminds us that activists themselves have had long and continuing debates about the role and limits of legalism, something she has explored eloquently in her own work.1 These debates about the limits of legalism were often couched as debates about the advantages of alternative transitional justice mechanisms. While I did not make these debates a central focus on the book, I try to address them at times. Since it is impossible to present in the book even a fraction of the number of those who worked for accountability, the stories of a few actors stand in for the countless individuals and groups who work for justice. Thus I present skeptical arguments about justice by respected colleagues and friends like José Zalaquett or Ellen Lutz, in the
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
Nonprofit Policy Forum
Nonprofit Policy Forum PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
18.80%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Frontline of Refugee Reception Policy: Warsaw Reception Centers During the 2022 Ukrainian Crisis Frontline of Refugee Reception Policy: Warsaw Reception Centers During the 2022 Ukrainian Crisis Anders Sevelsted, Jonas Toubøl (eds.) (2023) The Social Enterprise Craze: CSO Financial Sustainability in Ghana How Do Nonprofits’ Organizational Characteristics Shape Environmental Philanthropy in Texas? A Network Science Approach
×
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