Search

Begin New Search Topic Victims Political Geography Global Focus

1. On Solid Ground: Building Sustainable Peace and Development After Massive Human Rights Violations

Author:
The International Center for Transitional Justice
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
Abstract:
This report of the Working Group on Transitional Justice and SDG16+ articulates the contributions of transitional justice to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 on peace, justice, and inclusion, but also related goals on gender and inequality. The report contends that in contexts of serious and massive human rights violations, transitional justice provides a framework for addressing the needs of victims, helping to reduce the “justice gap,” and building sustainable peace and development.
Topic:
Gender Issues, Human Rights, Inequality, Sustainable Development Goals, Transitional Justice, and Victims
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Forms of Justice: A Guide to Designing Reparations Application Forms and Registration Processes for Victims of Human Rights Violations

Author:
Ruben Carranza, Cristian Correa, and Elena Naughton
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
Abstract:
n a number of countries around the world, governments have created state-administered reparations programs for victims and communities that were most affected by massive human rights violations. The success of these programs, which often involve thousands of individuals, depends in part on the state’s ability to reach victims and record their demands for justice in an effective and meaningful way. Reparations programs may be administered by government agencies pursuant to a law or policy or a court judgment. In all cases, a process of identifying, verifying, and registering those entitled to reparations is necessary. This often begins with a reparations application form.
Topic:
Human Rights, Transitional Justice, Humanitarian Crisis, Reparations, and Victims
Political Geography:
Global Focus

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