In recent years, there has been a noticeable turn towards the “local” in both the practice and academic study of transitional justice, exemplified by a belief that local transitional justice processes (LTJPs) are superior because they are rooted in cultural practices and closer to the communities and people seeking justice. However, this assumption, and the existing literature on these local initiatives, pays insufficient attention to asymmetric power relations between national and local actors and to the unseen domestic political interests that shape local transitional justice processes on the ground. By taking these factors into account, this dissertation contends that LTJPs can be used paradoxically to deflect justice in ways that allow ruling parties to avoid human rights accountability and that obscure the truth about wartime events. The dissertation further argues that the principal means by which justice is deflected is not through overt manipulation by ruling parties, but rather, through more indirect processes of “distortional framing” that ruling parties use to establish discursive limits around discussions of the past and to conceal their own human rights abuses. The cases of Cambodia and Mozambique are examined in detail to reveal and to trace the processes by which distortional framing has been employed as a tactic to deflect justice. This dissertation contributes to the study of transitional justice, not only by challenging the prevailing assumption that LTJPs are inherently preferable because they are more “authentic” or closer to the people, but by providing a novel explanation of how these processes can be manipulated to subvert their own stated goal of advancing the cause of justice, and by providing a detailed account of these distortionary processes at work in two post-conflict countries located on two different continents.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2015 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT : Universal jurisdiction is a relatively new concept in South Africa and a rather controversial concept in international criminal law. It is often discussed but rarely applied. Universal jurisdiction refers to the power of a State to punish certain crimes irrespective of where they were committed. Such crimes need not be connected to the State in question via the more traditional links of territory, nationality or direct State interest. These crimes are typically the worst crimes in international law such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The argument goes that those who commit these types of offences become hostis humani generis, or the enemies of all mankind. Therefore just like the pirate of old any nation that captures them is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction over them, on behalf of all mankind. But at the same time a feature and founding principle of international law is the sovereign equality of States. And under international law criminal jurisdiction is a prerogative of sovereign States. States have territorial jurisdiction over crimes committed within their territory, for having control over a territory is essentially what it means to be sovereign. This means that one nation’s attempt to exercise jurisdiction over persons that also fall under the jurisdiction of another nation could be perceived as the undermining of the second nation’s sovereignty. It is submitted that a proper understanding of universal jurisdiction internationally, and in South Africa, is vital because the Constitutional Court recently ordered South African authorities to investigate torture committed by Zimbabwean officials against Zimbabwean citizens that was allegedly committed in Zimbabwe. In other words the court ordered South African authorities to exercise universal jurisdiction over Zimbabwean officials. This thesis has as goal to critically examine the claims made, and authorities, cited in support of universal jurisdiction, as it is believed that these are usually theoretical and unpractical in nature. It is submitted that balance and a measure of realism is imperative to this debate. Contrary to popular opinion, it is submitted, that the history of international relations has not favored universal jurisdiction and there is no indication that this situation has fundamentally changed or will change in the near future. The thesis continues to examine, after a consideration of the likening of pirates to modern international criminals, the claim that old authorities such as Grotius and De Vattel provide support for universal jurisdiction. An analysis follows of the so-called ‘Lotus principle’, which is said to mean that any State may exercise jurisdiction over serious offences because there is no rule prohibiting it. The trials of German war criminals by the Allies, in the aftermath of WWII, is also said to have evidenced universal jurisdiction and this claim is critically examined. The same applies to the trial of Adolf Eichmann by Israel. The examination of provision for universal jurisdiction in international law continues when the jurisdictional provisions of the Genocide, War Crimes and Torture Conventions are examined and specifically applied to South Africa. The drafting process of these Conventions is carefully studied to understand the intention and circumstances prevalent at the time. In the process specific countries and international case law dealing with these Conventions is also considered. The jurisdictional triggers of the International Criminal Court are surveyed and it is questioned whether it provides for universal jurisdiction and whether it can then be said to support member States in exercising universal jurisdiction on its behalf. The research findings on universal jurisdiction and the ICC are finally applied to South Africa especially with reference to the Constitutional Court decision on the torture committed in Zimbabwe before conclusions are drawn as to what South Africa’s international and domestic duties entail. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING : Universele jurisdiksie is ‘n relatief nuwe konsep in Suid-Afrika en ‘n redelik kontroversiële konsep in internasionale strafreg. Dit word gereeld bespreek maar weinig toegepas. Universele jurisdiksie verwys na die bevoegdheid van ‘n Staat om sekere misdrywe te straf ongeag waar dit gepleeg is. Die betrokke Staat hoef nie enige van die traditionele verbindings soos territorialiteit, nationaliteit of direkte Staats-belang met sodanige misdrywe te hê nie. Hierdie misdade is tipies van die ergste misdade in internasionale reg, soos volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en misdade teen die mensdom. Die argument is dat diegene wat hierdie tipe misdrywe pleeg hostis humanis generis, of vyande van die mensdom word. Daarom, net soos die seerower van ouds, is enige nasie, wat hulle in hegtenis neem geregtig om sy jurisdiksie, namens die ganse mensdom, oor hulle uit te oefen. Maar terselfde tyd is 'n kenmerk en grondbeginsel van internasionale reg die soewereine gelykheid van State. En onder internasionale reg is strafregtelike jurisdiksie 'n prerogatief van soewereine State. State het territoriale jurisdiksie oor misdade wat binne hul regsgebied gepleeg is, want om beheer oor 'n gebied uit te oefen is in wese wat soewerein wees behels. Dus kan een Staat se poging om jurisdiksie uit te oefen oor persone wat ook onder die jurisdiksie van 'n ander Staat val beskou word as die ondergrawing van die tweede Staat se soewereiniteit. Dit word aan die hand gedoen dat 'n behoorlike begrip van universele jurisdiksie, beide internasionaal, en in Suid-Afrika van uiterse belang is, veral omdat die Konstitionele Hof onlangs Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede beveel het dat marteling gepleeg in Zimbabwe, deur Zimbabwiese amptenare, teen Zimbabwiese burgers ondersoek moet word. Die hof het dus beveel dat die Suid-Afrikaanse owerhede universele jurisdiksie moet uitoefen oor Zimbabwiese amptenare. Hierdie tesis het ten doel om die gesag gewoonlik genoem, ter ondersteuning van universele jurisdiksie, krities te beskou, veral omdat dit gewoonlik teoreties en onprakties van aard blyk te wees. Hierdie tesis poog om ‘n noodsaaklike balans en mate van realisme tot die debat te voeg. Anders as wat algemeen aanvaar word ondersteun die geskiedenis van internasionale betrekkinge nie universele jurisdiksie nie en is daar ook geen aanduiding dat hierdie situasie onlangs fundamenteel verander het, of in die nabye toekoms sal verander nie. Die tesis beskou voorts, na 'n oorweging van die vergelyking van seerowers met moderne internasionale misdadigers, die bewering dat die ou skrywers soos De Groot en De Vattel hul steun verleen aan universele jurisdiksie. Hierna volg ‘n ontleding van die sogenaamde "Lotus beginsel", wat glo beteken dat enige Staat jurisdiksie mag uitoefen oor ernstige oortredings, bloot omdat daar geen reël is wat dit verbied nie. Die verhore van Duitse oorlogs misdadigers deur die Geallieerdes, na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, word ook dikwels as bewys gebruik van universele jurisdiksie en word ook krities bekyk. Dieselfde geld vir die verhoor van Adolf Eichmann deur Israel. Die voorsiening gemaak vir universele jurisdiksie word verder ondersoek deur te let op die jurisdiksionele bepalings in die Konvensies oor volksmoord, oorlogsmisdade en marteling en dit word telkens op Suid-Afrika van toepassing gemaak. Daar word veral noukeurig gelet op die opstel proses van hierdie Konvensies ten einde te bepaal presies wat die bedoeling en heersende omstandighede toe was. In die proses word spesifieke lande en internasionale gesag wat met die Konvensies te make het oorweeg. Die Internasionale Strafhof, en of dit voorsiening vir universele jurisdiksie maak, word ondersoek ten einde te bepaal of dit enigsins gesê kan word dat die Hof lidstate aanmoedig om universele jurisdiksie te beoefen. Laastens word die bevindings oor universele jurisdiksie en die Internasionale Strafhof toegepas op Suid-Afrika, veral met verwysing na die Konstitusionele Hof beslissing oor die marteling in Zimbabwe, voordat gevolgtrekkings gemaak word oor wat presies Suid-Afrika se internasionale en plaaslike pligte behels.

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Technology: Public Management, Durban University of Technology. South Africa, 2014. / Between 1983 and 1987, an estimated 20 000 people from Matebeleland and parts of Midlands Province in Zimbabwe were killed in an operation code named Gukurahundi by state security agents; mostly the Central Intelligence Organisation and a battalion [5th Brigade] especially trained for this operation. Since that time no official apology or any form of healing process has been proffered by the ZANU PF government which was responsible for these atrocities. As a result, most communities in these areas have never been afforded opportunities to openly talk about their experiences and to seek relief for their painful memories of the past. If anything, the government has continued to cause enduring pain by periodically actively suppressing any such attempts. It has become an accepted norm that after violent conflicts that programmes aimed at reconciliation, healing and forgiveness should be undertaken as part of the peacebuilding efforts. Where such has not occurred, there is a fear that there might be a return to violence at some point in that country or community. The question that this research seeks to answer is whether, in view of the absence of any apology or official healing programme, these communities can heal themselves? Using a participatory action research approach, this research sheds some light on what communities could possibly do on their own to deal with their hurts. It also identifies conditions that would make such healing sustainable and what currently prevents that from taking place. It finds that through a broadly-based array of actions such as creating safe and empathetic spaces for storytelling, both verbal and written, group-based healing workshops and other psychosocial approaches, as well as a critical analysis of participants’ contexts in order to understand what needs transformation, it is possible for traumatised communities to attain a measure of relief from their emotional and psychological wounds. It also finds that this relief could be more sustainable if certain conditions were eliminated.

<p>In the aftermath of World War Two, the International Community has shown a renewed commitment towards the protection of human rights. However, whether during wars or under dictatorial regimes, numerous human rights abuses occurred everywhere in the world, from Latin America to Eastern Europe and from Southern Europe to Africa. Countries which experienced oppressive governance or outrageous atrocities has to address the legacies of their past on the return of democratic rule or peace. In other words, they had to emerge from the darkness of dictatorship or civil war in order to establish a democracy. Today, after 14 years of civil war, Liberia is faced with the challenge of achieving a successful transition where the imperatives of truth, justice and reconciliation need to be met. The purpose of this research paper was to make some recommendations on the way the accountability process in Liberia should be shaped as far as prosecution is concerned.</p>

This thesis examines prosecutorial challenges of the International Criminal Court (ICC/the court) in relation to the dwindling legitimacy prosecuting under Article 5 of the Rome Statute and other relevant international law principles. The study attempts a prognosis of the future shape of ICC prosecutions in light of the challenges and proposes reforms to the operations of the Court and its constitutive instrument to improve the dispensation of justice. The focus of the study is substantive international criminal law, developments in relevant case laws of international courts and tribunals, structure and procedures of the ICC and relevant principles within the context of elements of the Crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the Crime of aggression. The thesis further evaluates the role of the Court as it ensures international cooperation with domestic efforts to promote the ‘Rule of law’, uphold the principles of international humanitarian law, human rights law and combat impunity being the first permanent treaty-based international criminal court with the intent and purpose of ending impunity for perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community and thus contributes to the prevention of such crimes. Additionally, the International Criminal Court advances international criminal justice, particularly with regard to victims by providing not only legal justice but also participation in the process and restorative justice to rebuild the society after mass violence. The thesis is an analysis of the prosecutorial challenges at the International Criminal Court, using its legal framework and jurisprudence to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

1 Summary Crimes against humanity, together with war crimes, crime of agression and Genocide, create a group of so called crimes under the international law. For these crimes it is characteristical that they are so grave and so dangerous that their punishment is a matter of the whole international community. Such punishment for these crimes has already been carried out several times on international level. As an example we can use the tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which are still operating. This thesis deals with crimes against humanity in practice of International Criminal Court. This court, unlike the previous international criminal tribunals, is a permanent judicial institution. The main focus of the research is a substantive law characteristic of crimes against humanity i.e., physical and mental elements of these crimes. The aim of the thesis is to find out whether the International Criminal Court brought some progress to substantive law definition of aforementioned crimes. The thesis is divided into four chapters. The first chapter deals with the position of crimes against humanity in the system of the international law. The aim of this chapter is to define the basic terms of the subject and to determine the position of crimes against humanity in the system of the international law. The...

This thesis deals with crimes against humanity and war crimes in the practice of the International Criminal Court, an institution established to prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole (which include, in addition to the two types mentioned above, genocide and crimes of aggression). Prosecution of these crimes changed significantly from the military tribunals following World War II to the ad hoc tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and finally to the International Criminal Court, which was created as a permanent international institution in 1998 at the Rome Conference and became operational in 2002 after its Statute reached the required number of ratifications. The aim of this thesis is to introduce how crimes against humanity and war crimes have been conceived in the practice of the International Criminal Court with respect to the development of their concept and prosecution by the previous criminal tribunals. The thesis is divided into three main chapters. In the first one, I introduce the topic, specifically the development of the idea to establish a permanent international criminal tribunal as well as its eventual establishment. Furthermore, the first chapter also includes a theoretical introduction to the jurisdiction of the International...

Les minorités religieuses représentent souvent une composante de la population et se caractérisent par leur différence religieuse qui peut les rendre vulnérables à diverses menaces. Assurer la sécurité et la stabilité des sociétés comportant des minorités religieuses impose l’adoption de dispositions spécifiques. La protection pénale représente ici le moyen juridique le plus efficace, à travers la dissuasion réalisée par les sanctions et les mesures adoptées. Cette étude vise à déterminer le fondement et la portée de ladite protection accordée à des minorités et ce, en établissant une comparaison entre deux systèmes différents devant la religion, le système religieux (libyen et égyptien) et le système laïc (français). Le Statut de la Cour pénale internationale en tant qu’axe complémentaire sera ici un élément neutre par sa position ni laïque, ni religieuse. Cette comparaison s’attachera à l’impact du système juridique adopté quant aux droits des minorités religieuses. / Religious minorities are often a component of the population and are characterized by their religious difference that can make them vulnerable to various threats. Ensuring security and stability of societies with religious minorities requires the adoption of specific provisions. The criminal protection, here, represents the most effective legal means, through deterrence achieved by sanctions and measures adopted. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of that protection extended to minorities in terms of foundation and reach, by making a comparison between two different systems in front of religion: the religious system (Libya and Egypt) and the secular system (French). The Statute of the International Criminal Court as a complementary axis, here, is a neutral element in its position nor secular or religious. This comparison will focus on the impact of the legal system adopted regarding the rights of religious minorities.

Thesis advisor: David Rasmussen / This thesis begins by analyzing three different philosophies on human rights. It looks to the foundations of these theories, but focuses primarily on the obligations that each system creates. It evaluates cosmopolitanism and two different institutionalist arguments, eventually settling on a tiered system of international responsibility as the strongest and most practical conception of rights. The second chapter of the thesis discusses the role of the International Criminal Court as a part of this tiered system, and as a means to promote human rights across the globe. This section evaluates the court by considering its historical foundations, its goals and responsibilities, and its actions over the past ten years. It concludes by providing recommendations for the future of the court. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2013. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: College Honors Program.

Understanding the psychology behind the perpetrators of the Holocaust has been difficult because experiments on conformity and obedience cannot readily simulate the reality of the Holocaust. There exists historical documentation surrounding the leaders of the Nazi organization instrumental for the perpetration of the Holocaust, but the underlying motives of Hitler's leaders relating to governmental policies of systematic extermination of the Jews in Europe, are not known, as the strategy and operationalization of the actions were kept extremely secret, disguised by euphemisms, or only discussed verbally. This research study was to further understand the thought processes behind the manipulation tactics applied by leaders of the Nazi organization, and the leaders of Britain, America, and the Soviet Union during the Holocaust, by reviewing their personal writings, communiques, and orders. The theoretical base used was the theory of groupthink by Janis, because it is most applicable to understanding complex human psychology. The research questions of the study were: a) to find the origins of the Final Solution, why it gained acceptance by the Nazis, and the role of anti-Semitism ; and b) to identify groupthink symptom language relating to German, British, American, and Soviet leaders during the Holocaust. A qualitative multiple retro-historical case study methodology was selected. Data were collected and analyzed from archival material and groupthink theory was found to be ideally suited to the study of the Holocaust. Translation of a period of Alfred Rosenberg's diary relating to Hitler's issuance of the 'Hitler Extermination Order,' was discovered. The results show areas for further research, including the translation into English of the Alfred Rosenberg diary that was lost to history for over 60 years. The findings of this research study will hopefully help organizational psychologists to better remedy groupthink practices.