Search

Begin New Search Topic Injustice Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Social Dialogue as a Tool to Fight Inequality & Recover After a Pandemic

Author:
Liv Tørres
Publication Date:
07-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
Si vis pacem, cole justitiam” – “If you desire peace, cultivate justice,” is the motto enshrined in the foundations of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) building in Geneva, established in 1919. World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the fear of communism that followed, had convinced world leaders that, “universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice,” as they stated in the 1919 Versailles Treaty. Widespread injustice, inequalities, and exclusion were the enemies of peace. Many would argue they are no less relevant today. Over the past 100 years, “social compacts” and “social dialogue” are frequently referenced all over the world as tools to achieve shared growth and prosperity, better working conditions, higher living standards, and higher productivity. Social dialogue is often seen as a miraculous recipe for sustainable development, decent work, and growth, especially in times of crisis or recovery. This was seen in South Africa, where institutions were established as part of the effort to rebuild after Apartheid. It has also occurred periodically in Latin America when social issues have become contentious. The concept was evoked in the U.S.’ New Deal of the 1930s following the economic “crash,” as well as in crisis-torn Scandinavia in the same decade. Now, social dialogue has emerged again among those who are now planning priorities for next decade in the face of massive challenges amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Liv Tørres considers the following questions in this paper: what actually is social dialogue and what value may it hold for post-pandemic management and recovery?
Topic:
Inequality, Peace, COVID-19, Injustice, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
South Africa and Africa

2. Transitional justice and democratisation nexus: Challenges of confronting legacies of past injustices and promoting reconciliation within weak institutions in Kenya

Author:
Ibrahim Magara
Publication Date:
08-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
African Journal on Conflict Resolution
Institution:
The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD)
Abstract:
Following the post-election violence (PEV) of 2007-8, which almost jettisoned the country into civil war, Kenya put in place a number of transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth telling, as a peacebuilding strategy. One of the major recommendations of Kenya’s Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) is the creation of institutions and mechanisms for peacebuilding, reconciliation, and early warning with a view towards harmonising their activities and adopting a coordinated approach. This article explicates the centrality of democratic institutional reforms in the process of reconciliation, peacebuilding, and long-term stability. In tackling the notion of national reconciliation as a central pillar in post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding, this paper proposes that reconciliation happens within strong and properly functioning institutions of governance that are supportive of transitional justice mechanisms. Based on the transitional justice process in Kenya and building upon a view of reconciliation as a process, rather than an end, this paper argues that strengthening institutions that function within governance structures will go a long way towards placing Kenya on the path to reconciliation, national cohesion, and long term stability.
Topic:
Democratization, Transitional Justice, Institutions, Reconciliation, and Injustice
Political Geography:
Kenya and Africa

3. The Comfort Women Case Reconsidered: Making Citizens Responsible for Historical Injustices

Author:
Jun-Hyeok Kwak
Publication Date:
07-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
The year 2010 marks the eighteenth anniversary of the first Wednesday Demonstration in Seoul. Over nine hundred times, former “comfort women” and other Korean citizens have assembled in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul to demand a sincere and official apology from the Japanese government. The door of the embassy, however, has remained firmly closed to the voices of the surviving victims and the citizen-led protests. The Korean government similarly disregards the protesters’ demands, citing the importance of maintaining a peaceful diplomatic relationship with Japan. A phrase used on the website of the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan (Korean Council hereafter) succinctly expresses the feelings of the survivors: “Our tears have not dried up yet.” In this respect, the idea that responsibility for historical injustices committed by a previous generation can be inherited by the next generation seems to apply to the “comfort women” case. First of all, with the passage of time, fewer and fewer perpetrators and victims are still alive. Without the theoretical basis of responsibility being passed down to the next generation, historical injustices like those experienced by “comfort women” will be buried and forgotten with the wounds of the victims left unhealed. Second, the principle of inherited responsibility is expected to guarantee that no similar inhumane deeds will ever be committed again. By recognizing the gravity of the injustices perpetrated in the past and the difficulty of healing the wounds, we can share the idea that we must try to do our best not to become either perpetrators or victims of the same kinds of crimes. However, the “comfort women” issue, in the context of inherited responsibility, remains stuck in the middle of contentions that have no viable solution. The Japanese government, which in this situation is the agent responsible for the wartime atrocities, tends either to deny the rationale for any collective responsibility or to limit the extent of such responsibility in terms of compensatory measures, either financial or nonfinancial. In contrast, South Korean victims and protesters, who have demanded from Japan an official apology and the acknowledgment of historical wrongdoings, have been too unilateral or nationalistic to shape a nonethnocentric deliberation for “thick” reconciliation with Japan. On the basis of these observations, analyzing the “comfort women” case in the context of inherited responsibility, I will suggest the concept of civic responsibility with reciprocal nondomination as a viable solution for the “comfort women” case in Northeast Asia. First, reviewing the theories of inherited responsibility, I argue that these are not sufficiently applicable to the “comfort women” issue. Two considerations are proposed in accordance with the “agent” bearing inherited responsibility and the “scope” of its recompense. Second, I propose reciprocal nondomination as a regulative principle for making citizens responsible for historical injustices in Northeast Asia. Here, reciprocal nondomination is presented as a future-centered regulatory principle that encourages both victims and wrongdoers to take a nonethnocentric deliberative stance.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Sexual Violence, Injustice, and Victims
Political Geography:
Global Focus