Contesting Histories

Author:

Wilson Richard Ashby1,Petrović Vladimir2

Affiliation:

1. Law and Anthropology, University of Connecticut

2. Petrović, Institute for Contemporary History

Abstract

Abstract Mass political violence unsettles the past like no other comparable event and the contestation over the historical framing of a conflict continues long after the final peace is signed. Transitional justice institutions actively partake in this contestation as they inevitably broach the most sensitive historical issues. Their conclusions can foster peaceful coexistence or actively forestall public debate about the past. Some scholars have asserted that because truth commissions are released from the criminal justice impulse to adjudicate guilt, they are more able to address the structural causes of the conflict. The authors find to the contrary: truth and reconciliation commissions do not in themselves represent an improvement on courts with respect to the historical accounts they produce. The chapter compares the historical inquiries of domestic and international justice institutions and finds that international institutions are less prone to nationalist distortions and more open to the voices of all those affected by mass violations. International institutions often have capacious rules of evidence, allowing them to admit a wider range of relevant material evidence. Process matters as much as product, and in their investigations, they have gained access to government intelligence archives, revealed the inner workings of a security apparatus, and prompted social movements for accountability. Recognizing the importance of the contested process of history-writing moves us away from a rigid dichotomy between law and history, and towards an actor-centered and empirical approach that focuses on the specific context of the transition from conflict, and the strategies of legal actors that seek to achieve certain identifiable goals through writing history.

Publisher

Oxford University Press

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3