Memory and Political Change pp 89-111 | Cite as
From Domestic to International Instruments for Dealing with a Violent Past: Causes, Concomitants and Consequences for Democratic Transitions
Abstract
This contribution focuses on the way the state and the international community deal with the legacy of a violent past after repressive dictatorships or civil wars. During the 1980s and the early 1990s, attempts to institutionalize memory and to come to terms with the past in the transitional period after the collapse of repressive authoritarian regimes were usually undertaken within a domestic framework. Since the 1990s, there have been increasing numbers of external initiatives to promote democracy and, in light of increased international interventions to enforce and keep the peace, the mechanisms of truth, reconciliation and justice have also become internationalized. Institutional procedures and the politics of memory now increasingly involve international actors; the duty of lifting the lid of silence off painful periods of history has almost become an international norm.
Keywords
United Nations International Criminal Court Rome Statute Transitional Justice Democratic TransitionPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 1.See Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe Schmitter (1986), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 28–32.Google Scholar
- 2.Samuel P. Huntington (1991), The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press), pp. 211–31.Google Scholar
- 3.See Diane F. Orentlicher (1991), ‘Settling Accounts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime’, Yale Law Journal, 100 (8), 2537–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Margaret E. Karns and Karen A. Mingst (2004), International Organizations: The Politics and Processes of Global Governance (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner), p. 416.Google Scholar
- 18.Emilie M. Hafner-Burton and Kiyoteru Tsutsui (2005), ‘Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises’, American Journal of Sociology, 110 (5), 1373–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (1998), Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
- 27.Daniel Levy and Nathan Sznaider (2006), ‘Sovereignty Transformed: A Sociology of Human Rights’, British Journal of Sociology, 57 (4), 657–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.See Thomas M. Franck (1992), ‘The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance,’American Journal of International Law, 86 (1), 46–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.See Chandra Lekha Sriram (2005), Globalizing Justice for Mass Atrocities. A Revolution in Accountability (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
- 31.Compare Orentlicher (2001) and Orentlicher (2007), ‘“Settling Accounts” Revisited: Reconciling Global Norms with Local Agency’, International Journal of Transitional Justice, 1 (1), 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Kathryn Sikkink (2005), ‘The Transnational Dimension of the Judicialization of Politics in Latin America’, in R. Sieder, L. Schjolden and A. Angell (eds), The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 263–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.See John G. Ikenberry (2009), ‘Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order’, Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Immanuel Kant (1795), ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’, in Hans Reiss (ed.) (1991), Kant’s Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 93–130.Google Scholar
- 36.See Roger Mac Ginty (2008), ‘Indigenous Peace-Making Versus the Liberal Peace’, Cooperation and Conflict, 43 (2), 139–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Michael Ignatieff (2001), ‘Human Rights as Politics’, in Michael Ignatieff (ed.), Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar