As such, justice now and in the future can effectively be reduced by the pursuit of retrospective justice.
Also, there appears little evidence that courtroom justice does much to heal the wounds of the victims of past atrocities. The balancing of the legal scales today may actually do little to help the process of settlement for the souls of those affected by gross injustice.
Far better to institutionalise locally applicable variants of the extraordinary Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-apartheid South Africa or the lesser known “gacaca” system in Rwanda.
Advertisement
In these cases, there is a sense of both justice and forgiveness. They are both acknowledging the past, but are forward-looking and are concerned with finding ways to take steps onwards, and away from the horrors of yesterday, both on a personal and on a national level.
As one who has not been a direct victim of dictatorship, it is not my position to speak for those that are. However, neither is it the place of international human rights lawyers to assume their work delivers personal peace and settlement, nor to suppose their work is a net positive in terms of global justice.
It is up to those most affected to choose whether a process of legal vengeance or institutionalised settlement is the way they need to find their peace again. The international legal system must simply provide the means.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
1 post so far.