This chapter focuses on existing literatures and theoretical concerns that have contributed on linking the DDR and transitional justice. The first section of this chapter is the literature review with main highlights on the literary work of the relationships, connections and linkages between DDR program and transitional justice with my argument that it is important to link DDR program and transitional justice to carry out the fair treatment for both ex-combatants and victims. The following sections present the definitions and concepts of the DDR and transitional justice separately. In the last and third section, it briefly attempts to focus on the main theoretical connection, overlaps between DDR and transitional justice. In addition, it introduces the benefit of linking DDR program and transitional justice in brief.
2.1 Literature Review
War shatters the stability of the societies and split up people in the armed groups. It also affects the lives of people in various ways including women and children. It simply breaks the rule of law and order in the society. Conflict actors violate the human rights and international law to achieve their goals through unlawful killings, torture, arbitrary arrest and sexual violence. Over last 20 years, DDR programs are commonly
…show more content…
This may take several years to achieve its goal because reconciliation, compensation and promoting justice are most challenging tasks in the post-conflict scenes. The resuming of the violent conflict can be stopped by addressing systematic past abuses of human rights. Therefore, it is very important to deal with the rule of law, human right violations and in establishing accountable and well-functioning states. Transitional justice is the means of addressing all components of reconstruction and rebuilding after conflict period which also includes prosecutions, compensations, forgiving past crimes and reparations to
War is a conflict that has been seen by every human civilization to some extent, and is sure to be seen by those in the future. These hostile situations can be caused by a variety of situations, including land, resources, philosophy, and religion. Though the exact cause and result of each war is different, there are ways to gauge the effectiveness and permissibility of the actions of governments and armed forces during war. This is the premise of Just War Theory. Just War is philosophy of rating a war as ethically just or not, which has three basic requirements along with a scale for comparison.
Since the First Agricultural Revolution in 10,000 B.C. which caused a global population increase and introduced the territorial culture, organized warfare has always been universal to humanity. Opposing forces have always conglomerated individuals into a collective with the common purpose of fighting another collective. But war has never been an intrinsically satisfying or popular activity for individuals to engage in; to go to war is to leave your family and friends behind sometimes for months, years, or even forever; to go to war is to know that at any moment you could lose your life—you may not even see it coming; to go to war is to come to terms with the notion that you will likely kill people who probably did nothing even nearly deserving of death.
Throughout the recorded history of the world, mankind has adhered to the concept of peaceful order. Civilizations have been divided into castes and classes throughout history as a way of creating stability. The world is a chaotic place in which mankind has desired to bring order to in order to feel safe and in control. Such an ideal, however, cannot exist in the face of conflict, specifically war. War throws the notion of rules, regulations, and order out the window as soldiers fight for survival.
An Evaluation of the Restorative Justice Model In Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology, Karmen (2015) outlines the restorative justice model of confronting perpetrators of criminal acts. Restorative justice is an alternative to the more traditional legal system of retributive justice; this model strives to increase communication between victim and offender and moves the focus away from offender punishment or other state-centered actions (Karmen, 2015). The restorative justice model has several benefits, including a greater level of focus on crime victims and an emphasis on making peace after a criminal event, such that an offender may reintegrate into society at large (Karmen, 2015). Restorative justice also allows for crime victims
During the war, violence against women and children was the cornerstone of the Rebel United Force’s (RUF) plots. However, violence against women and children became an issue on both sides of the fight. Even opposers of the RUF used violence against women as a strategic tactic; most women who entered the war did so because they were abducted. Many women who fought with the RUF acted as captive “wives” of soldiers and had jobs handing out weapons, food, and valuables stolen from villages.
The overall goal of genocidal rape is to inflict punishment on the male enemy by creating psychological and physical harm for women and girls (Sharlach 2000 as cited in Matusitz, 2017, p. 836). Consequently, war rape as genocidal rape redefines the sexually assaulted woman’s body as a “site of ethnic clashes” (Kirk & Taylor, 2006, p. 139) and reframes the targeted population as sub-human. In turn, the ethnic cleansing strategy represents “an enactment of ethnic superiority” (Mullins, 2009, p. 732). The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of genocidal rape.
In the UNSC’s article 51, individual and collective self-defense can be authorized by the UNSC under the framework of collective security. However, genocide is never justifiable in the eyes of the UN. Perhaps the most distinguishing feature between war and genocide is the disproportionally ability of those involved to fight back. Within war there is a certain level of understanding that those engaging in the conflict will have an ability to engage in battle. However, historically in genocides the effected groups have had little to no ability to proportionately fight against their attackers.
The support for restorative justice stems from a strong commitment to social justice and the notion that the US judicial system must fundamentally change its approach to encourage healing and repair injustice. Focusing on mass imprisonment and punishment helps cause the pain and trouble that people involved in America’s justice system face every day due to the ignorant, constant system that is still
INTROCUTION To translate the R2P principles to deeds will require serious commitment from all the governments who unanimously affirmed at the 2005 World Summit Outcome that “each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” (UN world summit, 2005). To relies a credible implementation, it is necessary that Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Outcome which goes to the real issue of operationalizing the responsibility to protect (widely referred to as “R2P” in English) is sincerely adhered to by all. This brief paper will cover current R2P debate and the complex issue of implementing the R2P pillars which are: Pillar one the protection responsibilities of the State (sect. II).
This reflection paper will first address the advantages of using retributive justice approach in three court-cases. Second, it will discuss the disadvantages of using retributive justice approaches by analyzing the three court-cases listed above. Third, it will elaborate on ways that the system could have used restorative justice processes in the cases, as well as present potential outcomes that could have been reached if restoration justice was taken into consideration. First, during lecture three, we talked about the notion of just deserts.
The victim deserves similar level of protection and attention from the court like that of an accused i.e. a victim 's interests need to be balanced vis-à-vis that of accused. Victims of crime go through mental and physical trauma and suffer throughout their lives , as there place in the society changes. A victim is certainly entitled to reparation, restitution and safeguards of his rights and criminal justice would look hollow if justice is not done to the victim of the crime. In recent years, the Legislature and the judiciary have taken gradual steps to develop the necessary principles by which appropriate compensation could be paid to the victims of crimes. The gradual shift in the approach of the Supreme Court is a positive sign but other organs i.e. the government and the legislature have to make conscious efforts to consider the rights of the victims.
Justice may sometimes be cruel and harsh, in being so, however, it is universal for each and every one of us and we defend our rights in the name of it. When certain violations of justice occur individual entities are charged with different cases for which they are called up on a trial. For everyone to get a fair trial, there are some aspects to the law that need to be respected. The likes are: the phenomena of the “due process”, questioning the credibility of the witnesses and the role of advocates' persistency when defending their clients. All of these, together with a great deal of other principals, have to be there for justice to be done to the whole society.
Protect civilians in armed conflict, including through UN peacekeepers;3. End impunity through judicial action in national and international courts;4. Gather information and set up an early-warning system; and5. Take swift and decisive action, including military action.” (UN).
Batley (2005) stated that restorative justice is about restoring, healing and re- integrating victims, offenders, as well as the society and also preventing further harm. In this assignment, I will be discussing approaches to restorative justice and illustrating their advantages and disadvantages to offending. I will also provide the applications of these five approaches of restorative justice which are retributive approach, utilitarian deterrence approach, rehabilitation approach, restitution approach and restorative approach in the given case study. I will then explain my preferred approach to justice through identifying a personal belief or value that underpins my choice.
Justice within the context of today’s debate can be seen as solely retributive insofar as we are discussing the just response to wrongdoing and whether or not rehabilitation ought to be valued over this. My criterion for this today is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people which is Utilitarian within definition, it gives you a clear mechanism to weigh different paths as well as their consequences within the context of the same end state or goal, Justice. In addition, it is the most appropriate criterion for this debate