Judging State-Sponsored Violence, Imagining Political Change

Abstract

How should state-sponsored atrocities be judged and remembered? This controversial question animates contemporary debates on transitional justice and reconciliation. This book reconsiders the legacies of two institutions that transformed the theory and practice of transitional justice. Whereas the Nuremberg Trials exemplified the promise of legalism and international criminal justice, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission promoted restorative justice and truth commissions. Leebaw argues that the two frameworks share a common problem: both rely on criminal justice strategies to investigate experiences of individual victims and perpetrators, which undermines their critical role as responses to systematic atrocities. Drawing on the work of influential transitional justice institutions and thinkers such as Judith Shklar, Hannah Arendt, José Zalaquett and Desmond Tutu, Leebaw offers a new approach to thinking about the critical role of transitional justice – one that emphasizes the importance of political judgment and investigations that examine complicity in, and resistance to, systematic atrocities.

The caring refusenik: A portrait

“…Most frequently, political accounts of violence leave the structural‐relational background of violence out of the picture . For example, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission valued the healing potential of encounters between victims and perpetrators, mostly neglecting rhinoceration (Leebaw, ). Accounts of the systemic nature of apartheid—political, economic and epistemic—were sidelined and rendered inaudible by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in its strategic celebration of “the rainbow nation.” (Gready, ) In a climate where the language of reconciliation was imposed as the only language for discussing apartheid, where admitting to having been a rhinoceros got perpetrators off the penal hook and public forgiveness emerged as a test of good character, revealing the limits of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's vision meant assuming the risk of being labelled a spoiler.…”

“…Most frequently, political accounts of violence leave the structural-relational background of violence out of the picture. 8 For example, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission valued the healing potential of encounters between victims and perpetrators, mostly neglecting rhinoceration (Leebaw, 2011). Accounts of the systemic nature of apartheid-political, economic and epistemic-were sidelined and rendered inaudible by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in its strategic celebration of "the rainbow nation."…”

Surviving Violence: Transgressing Categories and Boundaries in Armed Conflicts

“…Some may choose to remain silent about these stories (Green 1995) while others may narrate them in a way that makes them meaningful and purposeful (Scheper-Hughes 2008). Furthermore, these decisions and actions within the 'gray zone' of violence illustrate the complexity of moral and political judgements in relation to the civilian protection regime, especially in the aftermath of violence (Baines 2009;Leebaw 2011). The complex realities of survival also bring into question how the international community may (or may not) support and enhance some of these strategies in politically justifiable ways.…”

“Today, I Want to Speak Out the Truth”: Victim Agency, Responsibility, and Transitional Justice

“…As a result, the process of deliberating questions of responsibility is depoliticized. Focusing on singular acts of extraordinary violence lifts these events outside of the historical and social context that gives violence its form, including within relations of violence which implicate persons as complicit (Fletcher ; Mamdani ; Leebaw :2–3). The “ideal victim” in transitional justice is a person without agency, and the perpetrator, an individual whose unbounded agency must be disciplined and brought under control (Borer ; Bouris ; Mcevoy and McConnachie ).…”

“…Attending to victim agency in settings of violence comes at an important moment in the field of transitional justice, as the very concept of victimhood is increasingly questioned (Jacoby ; Méndez , forthcoming). Transitional justice mechanisms designed to renegotiate the social contract after mass violence often reiterate a victim–perpetrator binary (Leebaw ; Chakravarti ). As a result, the process of deliberating questions of responsibility is depoliticized.…”