توضیحاتی در مورد کتاب :
این مجموعه مقالات، برخی از نظریه پردازان برجسته حقوقی، سیاسی و اخلاقی را گرد هم می آورد تا در مورد مسائل هنجاری که با پایان یافتن جنگ و زمانی که جامعه در تلاش برای به دست آوردن مجدد صلح است، بحث کنند. در دوران گذار از جنگ، قساوت جمعی یا رژیم سرکوبگر، چگونه باید به ایده دموکراسی و حقوق بشر نگاه کنیم؟ آیا رژیمها باید سرنگون شوند مگر اینکه دموکراتیک باشند یا کافی است که این رژیمها کمتر از قبل سرکوبگر باشند، اکنون کاملاً صلحآمیز و حامی حقوق بشر باشند؟ آیا دلایل اخلاقی وجود دارد که فکر کنیم سربازان باید از مسئولیت خلاص شوند تا هدف ایجاد صلح را پیش ببرند؟ و چگونه باید به اهداف اغلب متناقض گفتن حقیقت در مورد آنچه در گذشته رخ داده و اجازه دادن به افراد برای گذراندن روز خود در دادگاه توجه کنیم؟ به پرونده های سخت فعالان اقتصادی و همچنین کودکان سرباز چگونه نگاه کنیم؟ در این گلچین، هر یک از این سوالات مهم با ارائه پاسخ های آزمایشی به تفصیل مورد تحلیل قرار گرفته است. فراتر از این نگرانیهای خاص، نظریهپردازان همچنین این سؤال را مطرح میکنند که آیا خود قانون باید یک حوزه تحقیق مجزا باشد یا خیر. بنابراین این جلد با بحثی بین شکاکان و طرفداران jus post bellum به پایان می رسد.
فهرست مطالب :
Cover
MORALITY, JUS POST BELLUM, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Series
Title
Copyright
Contents
Contributors
Introduction
1: Post-conflict Truth Telling: Exploring Extended Territory
I. RIGHTS TO THE TRUTH: AN ISSUE FOR DOMESTIC TRANSITIONS ONLY?
II. EXTENDING OBLIGATIONS OF TRUTH TELLING BEYOND THE DOMESTIC SPHERE
III. IS POST-CONFLICT TRUTH TELLING IRRELEVANT TO INTERSTATE CONFLICT?
IV. VIOLENCE AMONG STATE ACTORS: WHICH TRUTH TO TELL AND HOW TO TELL IT
2: Reparations, Restitution, and Transitional Justice
I. TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE AND MEIONEXIA
II. THE CONCEPT OF RESTITUTION
III. AN ACCOUNT OF REPARATIONS
IV. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
V. COMPENSATING VICTIMS
3: Addressing Atrocity at the Local Level: Community-Based Approaches to Transitional Justice in Central Africa
INTRODUCTION
I. BACKGROUND TO THE GREAT LAKES CONFLICTS AND COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES TO TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE
Rwanda
Uganda
II. THE NECESSITY AND VIRTUES OF COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES TO TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE
Justice for Mass Atrocity: Reflecting the Nature of Modern Conflict
Facilitating Engagement in Pursuit of Broader Social Objectives
III. CRITIQUES OF COMMUNITY-BASED TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE
Problem of Indigeneity
Human Rights Concerns: Lack of Due Process
Elite Control
IV. RESPONDING TO THE CRITIQUES OF COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES
Problem of Indigeneity
Human Rights Concerns: Lack of Due Process
Elite Control
V. CONCLUSION
4: Timor-Leste and Transitional Justice: Should We Pursue International Prosecutions for the Crimes Committed in East Timor in 1999?
I. BACKGROUND
II. TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE INSTRUMENTS IN TIMOR-LESTE
A. Ad Hoc Tribunal for Human Rights – Jakarta, Indonesia
B. Serious Crimes Process: Special Panels and the Serious Crimes Unit (SCU)
C. Commission on Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR)
D. The Commission for Truth and Friendship
III. INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL OR NOT?
A. One Mechanism–One Aim
B. The Primary Aim of the Proposed International Tribunal for Timor-Leste
C. A Tribunal No One Wants?
5: Justice after War: Economic Actors, Economic Crimes, and the Moral Imperative for Accountability after War
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE PEACE AND JUSTICE/ECONOMICS DIVIDE
War Crimes Trials
Truth and Reconciliation Commissions
Transitional Justice
III. ECONOMIC CAUSES AND ACTORS IN WAR
Natural Resources and War
The Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission
IV. JUS POST BELLUM AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ECONOMIC CRIMES/CRIMINALS
Restitution and Reparations
Equality and Legitimacy
A Durable Peace
V. CONCLUSION
6: Child Soldiers, Transitional Justice, and the Architecture of Post Bellum Settlements
I. CHILD SOLDIERS AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ATROCITY: ASCENDANT APPROACHES
(A) Truth and Reconciliation Commissions
(B) Endogenous Restoration and Reintegration Mechanisms
II. A NEED TO INQUIRE AND FOR FURTHER INQUIRY
III. CONCLUSION
7: Our Soldiers, Right or Wrong: The Post-war Treatment of Troops
THE STATUS OF “UNJUST WARRIORS”
THE FEASIBILITY AND MORALITY OF REFUSAL
"FINISHED WITH THE WAR: A Soldier's Declaration"
UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT OF “OUR BRAVE TROOPS” — FOUR EXPLANATIONS
A COMPARISON WITH HONOURING WAR DEAD
8: Democratization and Just Cause
I. THE EXPANDED CONCEPTION OF JUST CAUSE
II. DEMOCRATIZATION AS A JUST CAUSE
III. SOME FURTHER DETAILS
9: Skepticism about Jus Post Bellum
1. INTRODUCTION
2. COMPENSATION
3. PUNISHMENT
4. RECONSTRUCTION AND INSTITUTIONAL COLLAPSE
5. THE GROUNDS AND CONTENT OF POST BELLUM DUTIES
6. CONCLUSION
10: Law and the Jus Post Bellum: Counseling Caution
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS JUS POST BELLUM?
JUS POST BELLUM: HISTORICALLY DEFENSIBLE?
A NEW JUS POST BELLUM?
The Existing Legal Framework: Broken Beyond Repair?
Is Jus Post Bellum the Answer?
DEFINITIONAL DIFFICULTIES
JUST WAR, SOVEREIGN EQUALITY, AND (NEO)COLONIALISM
CONCLUSION
Conclusion
Bibliographical Resources for Jus Post Bellum
Index
توضیحاتی در مورد کتاب به زبان اصلی :
This collection of essays brings together some of the leading legal, political, and moral theorists to discuss the normative issues that arise when war concludes and when a society strives to regain peace. In the transition from war, mass atrocity, or a repressive regime, how should we regard the idea of democracy and human rights? Should regimes be toppled unless they are democratic or is it sufficient that these regimes are less repressive than before, now thoroughly peaceful, and protective of human rights? Are there moral reasons for thinking that soldiers should be relieved of responsibility so as to advance the goal of peace building? And how should we regard the often conflicting goals of telling the truth about what occurred in the past and allowing individuals to have their day in court? How should we view the hard cases of economic actors as well as child soldiers? In this anthology, each of these important questions is analyzed in detail with tentative answers offered. Beyond these specific jus post bellum concerns, theorists also question whether jus post bellum itself should be a distinct field of inquiry. The volume thus concludes with a debate between the skeptics and proponents of jus post bellum.