No description available.

During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LLD

Ce mémoire s’intéresse aux récits des ex-combattants des groupes paramilitaires Autodéfenses unies de Colombie sur leur participation au conflit armé. Ces narrations, construites dans un contexte de réintégration à la société, permettent de réfléchir à la construction de la vérité par les ex-combattants dans les contextes post-conflit. Nous avons analysé les histoires de vie de 18 ex-combattants qui participaient au Programme de réintégration à la vie civile à Bogota. Nos interviewés ont adopté une position de victimes, en élaborant des discours justificateurs visant à se déresponsabiliser. Ces discours montrent une normalisation de la violence qui revient à la notion de « banalité du mal » d’Hannah Arendt. Nos interviewés ont employé plusieurs rhétoriques des groupes paramilitaires afin de justifier la violence. Ces rhétoriques font partie de la construction psychologique de l’ennemi par les groupes et elles invitent à analyser le rôle du langage dans la construction d’une culture paramilitaire. Néanmoins, certains interviewés ont condamné la violence exercée par leur groupe. Nous avons observé qu’il existe plusieurs interprétations de la manière dont nos interviewés disaient avoir réagi aux contextes de violence de masse, ce qui nous a amenés à réfléchir aux notions de culpabilité morale et juridique. / This paper studies the interpretations of the ex-combatants of the paramilitary groups United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia about their participation in the internal conflict. These discourses, created in a context of social reintegration, are used to discuss the recreation of the truth brought by the ex-combatants in post-conflict contexts. We analyzed the life stories of 18 ex-combatants who were part of the reintegration to civil life Program held in Bogota. Our interviewees have adopted a position of victims, creating discourses of legitimation of the violence in order to avoid the according responsability. In there, it suggests a normalization of violence, remembering the concept of the “banality of evil” brought by Hannah Arendt. Our interviewees have used the paramilitary rhetoric to justify violence. This rhetoric belongs to the psychological construction of the enemy by the groups and it reveals the role of language in the construction of a paramilitary culture. Although, we found that there are other interpretations that don’t concede and justify violence. There are different interpretations of their reactions in the contexts of mass violence. From there we discussed the notions of moral and legal guilty. / Esta investigación se interesa por las interpretaciones de los excombatientes de los grupos paramilitares Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia sobre su participación en el conflicto armado interno. Estas narraciones, creadas en un contexto de reintegración social, permiten reflexionar sobre la construcción de la verdad por los excombatientes en los contextos post-conflicto. Analizamos las historias de vida de 18 excombatientes que participaban en el Programa de Reintegración a la Vida Civil en Bogotá. Nuestros entrevistados adoptaron una posición de víctimas, construyendo discursos justificatorios buscando des-responsabilizarse. Estos discursos muestran una normalización de la violencia que recuerdan la noción de “banalidad del mal” de Hannah Arendt. Nuestros entrevistados emplearon varias retóricas de los grupos paramilitares para justificar la violencia. Estas retóricas hacen parte de la construcción psicológica del enemigo por los grupos e invitan a analizar el rol del lenguaje en la construcción de una cultura paramilitar. Sin embargo, no todos utilizaron discursos justificatorios. Encontramos que existen varias interpretaciones de la manera en que nuestros entrevistados decían haber reaccionado a los contextos de violencia de masa, lo cual nos condujo a reflexionar sobre las nociones de culpabilidad moral y jurídica.

During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL. D.

Ce mémoire s’intéresse aux récits des ex-combattants des groupes paramilitaires Autodéfenses unies de Colombie sur leur participation au conflit armé. Ces narrations, construites dans un contexte de réintégration à la société, permettent de réfléchir à la construction de la vérité par les ex-combattants dans les contextes post-conflit. Nous avons analysé les histoires de vie de 18 ex-combattants qui participaient au Programme de réintégration à la vie civile à Bogota. Nos interviewés ont adopté une position de victimes, en élaborant des discours justificateurs visant à se déresponsabiliser. Ces discours montrent une normalisation de la violence qui revient à la notion de « banalité du mal » d’Hannah Arendt. Nos interviewés ont employé plusieurs rhétoriques des groupes paramilitaires afin de justifier la violence. Ces rhétoriques font partie de la construction psychologique de l’ennemi par les groupes et elles invitent à analyser le rôle du langage dans la construction d’une culture paramilitaire. Néanmoins, certains interviewés ont condamné la violence exercée par leur groupe. Nous avons observé qu’il existe plusieurs interprétations de la manière dont nos interviewés disaient avoir réagi aux contextes de violence de masse, ce qui nous a amenés à réfléchir aux notions de culpabilité morale et juridique. / This paper studies the interpretations of the ex-combatants of the paramilitary groups United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia about their participation in the internal conflict. These discourses, created in a context of social reintegration, are used to discuss the recreation of the truth brought by the ex-combatants in post-conflict contexts. We analyzed the life stories of 18 ex-combatants who were part of the reintegration to civil life Program held in Bogota. Our interviewees have adopted a position of victims, creating discourses of legitimation of the violence in order to avoid the according responsability. In there, it suggests a normalization of violence, remembering the concept of the “banality of evil” brought by Hannah Arendt. Our interviewees have used the paramilitary rhetoric to justify violence. This rhetoric belongs to the psychological construction of the enemy by the groups and it reveals the role of language in the construction of a paramilitary culture. Although, we found that there are other interpretations that don’t concede and justify violence. There are different interpretations of their reactions in the contexts of mass violence. From there we discussed the notions of moral and legal guilty. / Esta investigación se interesa por las interpretaciones de los excombatientes de los grupos paramilitares Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia sobre su participación en el conflicto armado interno. Estas narraciones, creadas en un contexto de reintegración social, permiten reflexionar sobre la construcción de la verdad por los excombatientes en los contextos post-conflicto. Analizamos las historias de vida de 18 excombatientes que participaban en el Programa de Reintegración a la Vida Civil en Bogotá. Nuestros entrevistados adoptaron una posición de víctimas, construyendo discursos justificatorios buscando des-responsabilizarse. Estos discursos muestran una normalización de la violencia que recuerdan la noción de “banalidad del mal” de Hannah Arendt. Nuestros entrevistados emplearon varias retóricas de los grupos paramilitares para justificar la violencia. Estas retóricas hacen parte de la construcción psicológica del enemigo por los grupos e invitan a analizar el rol del lenguaje en la construcción de una cultura paramilitar. Sin embargo, no todos utilizaron discursos justificatorios. Encontramos que existen varias interpretaciones de la manera en que nuestros entrevistados decían haber reaccionado a los contextos de violencia de masa, lo cual nos condujo a reflexionar sobre las nociones de culpabilidad moral y jurídica.

[pt] O período do exílio foi particularmente fecundo para o pensamento religioso de Israel, quando, então, se pôs com veemência a questão da teodicéia e da busca de nova visão de Deus. Abraão, depositário das promessas, é feito porta- voz da questão fundamental acerca da justiça e da misericórdia de Deus, aguçada depois da destruição de Jerusalém quando, aparentemente, Deus não havia feito distinção entre a sorte dos culpados e dos inocentes. O diálogo entre Deus e Abraão logra justificar a Deus como justo juiz e reafirmar a tese deuteronomística da observância da Tora como condição para se obter a bênção prometida a Abraão; ao mesmo tempo, introduz elementos inusitados no pensamento de Israel, a saber, a possibilidade de os méritos do inocente mudar a sorte dos culpados. Na figura do Servo do Deutero-Isaías esta possibilidade é levada ao extremo, pondo definitivamente em xeque a doutrina da retribuição: o inocente não somente padece com os culpados, seus méritos não apenas influenciam o destino deles, mas ele sofre vicariamente, em lugar dos culpados. A descoberta deste novo modo de agir de Deus em seu Servo é a grande novidade revelada ao grupo que desempenha importante papel no poema. / [en] The exilic period was particularly fertile to Israel s religious thought, for at that time, the question of theodicy was strong, along with the search for a new understanding of God. Abraham, the holder of the promises, was the spokesman for the fundamental question of God s mercy and justice, a problem which became more urgent after the destruction of Jerusalem, when God apparently had not distinguished between the guilty and the innocent. The dialogue between God and Abraham manages to justify God as the righteous judge and reaffirm the deuteronimistic thesis of the observation of the Torah as necessary for obtaining the blessings promised to Abraham. At the same time, it witnesses to new developments in Israel s mentality, namely the possibility of the innocent s merit changing the fate of the guilty. In the figure of the Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaias this possibility is carried to the extreme, and the doctrine of retribution is definitively placed in check: the innocent not only suffers along with the guilty, his merits not only influence the latter s fate, but the innocent suffers vicariously, in place of the guilty. This discovery of God s new way of acting in his Servant is the great novelty revealed to the group that plays an important role in that poem.

L’analyse des procédures de reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité en droit français et en droit anglais peut, de prime abord, sembler poser un certain nombre de difficultés. En effet les modèles inquisitoire et accusatoire de justice pénale, de par leurs spécificités, ne paraissent se prêter que difficilement à une telle étude comparée. Cependant cette affirmation n’est plus à l’heure actuelle, en raison notamment de la construction européenne, entièrement exacte. Les modèles de justice pénale dans la plupart des Etats de droit ne répondent plus à la dichotomie initialement posée et tendent progressivement à converger vers un modèle commun au sein de procédures pénales mixtes fondées essentiellement sur les principes du contradictoire et du procès équitable. C’est dans ce contexte qu’il convient de se pencher sur la notion de reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité. Celle-ci tend à s’affirmer au gré des réformes législatives, devenant ainsi un véritable outil de politique criminelle visant à davantage d’efficacité de la procédure pénale, par une plus grande célérité dans le traitement des affaires pénales. Toutefois, en France comme en Angleterre, le recours croissant aux procédures de reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité nécessite une modification structurelle et organisationnelle de la justice pénale. En conséquence et s’agissant de l’évolution globale des systèmes de justice pénale, une tendance générale se profile érigeant l’autorité des poursuites au rang de pivot central du processus judiciaire. Des garanties doivent donc être offertes afin de conserver une procédure pénale d’équilibre, à la fois efficace et légitime. / The analysis of guilty plea procedures, in French and English laws, seems, on a prima facie ground, to raise some issues. The inquisitorial and the accusatorial model of criminal justice do not, due to their respective specificities, easily leave a breathing space for any comparative study. Yet, taking into account the European expansion, this assertion does not remain, nowadays, entirely true. Models of criminal justice, in most States governed by the rule of law, do not longer meet the initial dichotomy and gradually tend to be unified towards a standard model within “mixed” criminal justice systems essentially based on the adversarial and fair trial principles. In this perspective, the notion of pre guilty plea needs to be clarified. This notion asserts itself alongside with legislative reforms, thus becoming a genuine tool of criminal policy aiming at a better efficiency in the criminal process through a more prompt handling of criminal offences. Nevertheless, both in France and in England, the increasing resort to pre-guilty plea procedures requires a structural and organisational modification of criminal justice. As a consequence and regarding the global evolution of criminal justice systems, a general tendency has emerged introducing Public Prosecution authorities as the linchpin of the process. Safeguards should be provided in order to maintain a well-balanced criminal justice process, both efficient and legitimate.