This thesis addresses accountability for mass atrocities. It presents a case study of Uganda that has undergone a two-decade conflict between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) insurgent group and the national army, the Uganda People’s Defence Armed Forces (UPDF). The government of Uganda has initiated various accountability measures that include international and domestic prosecutions, truth telling, reparations and traditional justice to address international crimes and other human rights violations committed during the conflict. The thesis in particular investigates how all these mechanisms could be used in a way that ensures that Uganda fulfils its international obligations and that the different measures complement each other. The thesis traces the background to the conflict that began in 1986 and explores the consequences of the conflict on the civilian population in Uganda. It alludes to its spread from Uganda to South Sudan and since 2008, to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Central African Republic. It argues that the significant and continuous involvement of the government of Sudan from 1994 to 2005 internationalised the LRA conflict. It further finds that both the LRA and the UPDF perpetrated war crimes and crimes against humanity during the conflict. The thesis further discusses the international obligation of Uganda to prosecute, punish and extradite persons responsible for the commission of international crimes and to ensure remedies to victims of such crimes and other human rights violations. It finds that the lapse of Part II of the Amnesty Act that allowed for a ‘blanket amnesty’ leaves room for Uganda to fulfil its international obligations. The thesis further investigates the Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation and its Annexure reached between the government of Uganda and the LRA in Juba that ushers in the various accountability pursuits in Uganda. It argues that the implementation and successes of the Agreement depends on the consultations, legislations, policies and the establishment and workings of the institutions envisaged that could lead to justice, truth and reparations in Uganda. The thesis finds that the different accountability measures that Uganda is pursuing correspond to the political, social and historical conditions in Uganda, in particular, decades of armed conflict and human rights violations with impunity of perpetrators. It concludes that the success of the accountability undertakings will largely depend on the high calibre of officials and staff of the different institutions and their ability to deal wisely with challenges that will inevitably arise. It further finds that a political will and commitment is essential to ensure adequate investment in technical, material and financial resources and that non-interference of the government in the work of the institutions will ensure success. It concludes that such a political will and commitment, a robust consultation with stakeholders including victim groups and the creation of alliances locally, nationally, regionally and internationally, Uganda’s accountability pursuits will lead to the desired justice, truth and reparations. / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Centre for Human Rights / unrestricted

Thesis (MPhil (Philosophy))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Are violent and non-violent mass atrocities morally different? According to the United Nations, they are. But why? The answer to this question is important as it in part determines our obligations to people living in other countries. This thesis seeks to determine if violent and non-violent mass atrocities are morally different and, if not, whether the latter should be included under the United Nations’ doctrine of the responsibility to protect. In order to do this, the thesis first examines the conditions under which sovereignty exists in order to understand when intervention can occur. It also analyzes just war theory to discern when military intervention to halt nonviolent mass atrocities is justified. Having established these two concepts, the thesis then presents three arguments for why non-violent mass atrocities are morally indistinguishable from violent ones and should also be included under the doctrine of the responsibility to protect. A discussion of the feasibility of implementing this extension and the long-term effects of these types of interventions follows. Finally, the thesis contains three case studies in order to apply the arguments presented earlier. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Is daar ‘n morele verskil tussen gewelddadige en nie-gewelddadige gruweldade? Volgens die Verenigde Nasies is daar so ‘n verskil, maar hoekom? Die antwoord tot hierdie vraag is deels belangrik omdat dit ons verantwoordelikhede tot mense in ander lande bepaal. In hierdie tesis word daar gepoog om te bepaal of daar so ‘n verskil tussen gewelddadige en nie-gewelddadige gruweldade is, en, indien nie, of nie-gewelddadige gruweldade ook moet tel onder die Verenige Nasies se verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm. Die tesis poog eerstens om die kondisies vir soewereiniteit te bepaal ten einde te probeer verstaan wanneer ‘n intervensie moreel regverdigbaar is. Dit analiseer ook die teorie van geregverdigde oorlogvoering ten einde te bepaal wanneer militêre inmenging om nie-gewelddadige gruweldade stop te sit geregverdig is. Na hierdie twee konsepte ondersoek is word daar drie argumente verskaf om aan te toon dat nie-gewelddadige gruweldade nie moreel onderskeibaar is van gewelddadige gruweldade nie, en dus dat nie-gewelddadige gruweldade onder die verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm behoort te tel. Dit word gevolg deur ‘n bespreking van die praktiese haalbaarheid van die implementering van so ‘n uitbreiding van die verantwoordelikheid om te beskerm, asook ‘n bespreking van die langtermyn effekte van hierdie tipes intervensies. Die tesis eindig met drie gevallestudies ten einde die argumente wat reeds gemaak is toe te pas.

Lorsque des peuples émergèrent enfin d’un conflit armé interne ou international qui s’était traduit par de longues années de souffrances et d’injustice, l’accord de paix conclu entre les anciens partis antagonistes, le plus souvent le gouvernement et les forces rebelles, comporta presque toujours une amnistie des crimes de masse commis par un grand nombre de leurs partisans. Ainsi, depuis le début du vingtième siècle, plusieurs dizaines d’Etats – principalement en Amérique latine et en Afrique - adoptèrent de telles mesures, qui revêtirent un caractère polymorphe. Principalement dirigées vers les simples exécutants de violations graves du droit humanitaire, elles furent parfois prises par des dirigeants politiques autocrates qui n’étaient pas toujours animés des meilleures intentions et qui cherchaient à consolider leur pouvoir ou à se ménager une porte de sortie honorable ; considérées comme « scélérates », elles s’opposent aux amnisties « ver-tueuses » adoptées par des dirigeants démocrates qui estimèrent qu’elles constituaient l’option la plus raisonnable pour favoriser la réconciliation et le rétablissement de l’Etat de droit dans leur pays, compte tenu des circonstances.Pourtant une telle voie leur était théoriquement inter-dite puisque la communauté internationale s’est très tôt engagée dans une lutte contre l’impunité des crimes de guerre et des crimes contre l’humanité, déclarés imprescriptibles, qui ne peuvent bénéficier d’aucune mesure de clémence publique et qui doivent être réprimés par tous les Etats au nom de leur « compé-tence universelle ». Toutefois cette « posture de conviction » sur l’illégitimité des amnisties des crimes de masse au regard du droit international humanitaire se heurta souvent aux contingences du terrain. Prenant en considération l’aspiration prioritaire des peuples au retour à la paix, fut-ce au détriment du droit des victimes à la vérité, aux réparations et au recours juridictionnel, la communauté internationale composa fréquemment avec ces impératifs pour adopter un « comportement de responsabilité ». Celui-ci s’imposa d’autant plus à elle, et tout particulièrement aux Nations unies, qu’elle n’était pas en mesure de propo-ser une alternative satisfaisante à l’amnistie. Elle n’a en effet mis en place aucun mécanisme juridictionnel permettant de juger les auteurs ordinaires de crimes de masse, qui se comptent par millions. Quant aux juri-dictions internes des pays post-conflictuels, elles n’offraient généralement aucune garantie d’efficacité et d’impartialité. / InWhen the people finally emerged from an internal or international armed conflict, which resulted in lasting years of suffering and injustice, peace agreements between former opposing parties (most often the government and representatives of rebel forces) almost always included an amnesty for mass atrocities com-mitted by a large number of their supporters.Thus, since the early 20th Century, dozens of states, mainly in Latin America and Africa, adopted such measures, which assumed a polymorphic character.These amnesties, mainly directed to « low level participants » in serious violations of international humanitarian law, were often adopted by political autocrats seeking to consolidate their power, or to arrange an honourable way out. This type of amnesty, viewed as « villainous » is in complete contrast to « virtuous » amnesties adopted by democratic leaders who considered them the most appropriate option to ensure the reconciliation between communities, and to restore the rule of law in their country, given circum-stances.Both types of amnesties however, are prohibited by international conventions because the international community commits itself to struggling against impu-nity for war crimes and crimes against humanity; declared inalienable, which cannot benefit from any public leniency. The perpetrators of such serious violations of criminal humanitarian laws must be punished by all States in the name of their « universal jurisdiction ». This mind-set on the illegitimacy of amnesties for international crimes however, often encountered pressures from the military.Taking into account the aspiration of peoples’ priority for a return to peace and security, even at the expense of the rights of victims to truth, reparations and judi-cial proceedings, the international community often composed with these requirements to adopt a « respon-sible behaviour ». It is even more strongly enforced by the United Nations, as no satisfactory alternative to amnesty granted to « low level perpetrators » was offered by international criminal jurisdictions. As for the domestic courts of post-conflict countries, they generally offered no guarantee of efficiency and impartiality.

Over the last two decades, the international community has taken on the task of rebuilding societies in the aftermath of mass-atrocities. Through a combination of trial and error and vigorous academic research, a relatively clear (and semi-malleable) blueprint of post-atrocity peacebuilding has developed. This includes setting up a temporary international transitional authority, establishing democracy, facilitating economic development, and holding war crime trials. Though there are volumes of studies which address the pragmatic strengths and weaknesses of these key elements of peacebuilding, to date political theorists have not critically analyzed the moral legitimacy of these policies. My thesis aims to fill this gap. The overarching question of this thesis is this: What moral duties does the international community have to post-atrocity societies? To answer this question, I critically examine the normative issues involved in the four key aspects of peacebuilding (identified above). Using the framework of just war theory and a cosmopolitan theory of fundamental human rights, I argue that, in most post-atrocity cases, the international community has duties to remove atrocity-committing regimes from power, occupy the target-state and act as a transitional authority, help facilitate the creation of democracy and economic development, and hold war crimes trials. These duties, of course, are extremely complicated and limited and these qualifications are examined and developed throughout. Running through the construction of my theory of post-atrocity duties is a clear message: we – the international community – have obligations to the victims and survivors of atrocities. In other words, providing assistance in the wake of mass-atrocities is not a supererogatory act of charity, rather, it is a duty which we owe to the victims of these horrible crimes.

The “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine was created with the purpose of providing an implementation mechanism for the international community to halt and prevent mass atrocity conflicts, however, it is not a legally binding framework, and requires the UNSC’s engagement for its successful implementation. Whilst R2P is a rhetorically compelling international norm, it falls apart in practice. The lack of consistency in its implementation and the UNSC’s inaction to various cases of mass atrocity, which are, in principle, applicable to the doctrine, has sparked controversy. This thesis examines conflicts in which R2P has been utilized and one conflict of similar dimensions in which the principle wasn’t applied, discussing the factors that could explain the question ‘why has the application of R2P been inconsistent at halting atrocity conflicts?’. By juxtaposing two theoretical lenses, Realism and English School, and applying a comparative analysis to these three cases, the thesis establishes that state behavior is driven by preserving power and resources, when it converges with upholding international norms and values. Thus, the thesis concludes that members of the Security Council will support R2P implementation and uphold shared norms and values, only when it serves their national interests.

This dissertation scrutinises two related claims that were particularly heightened in 2009 as the European Union (EU) was celebrating the first tenth anniversary of its European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the implementing arm of its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). First, the two policy frameworks allegedly embodied sufficient added value for bettering EU intervention for human protection purposes in third places. Second, the ESDP supposedly enabled the EU to make a difference in its response to two bloody wars that broke out in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) successively in 1996 and 1998. This thesis argues that the alleged added value and difference have been overstated at best. While various studies have taken a similar position, they have important shortcomings for at least four reasons: lack of a comprehensive account of the CFSP motives, capacities, and response; exclusive focus on civil and military operations; focus on the post-Second Congo War period; and a lack of conceptual clarity regarding two key terms – ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘peacebuilding’. This thesis goes beyond generalisation and undertakes a forensic examination of the CFSP statements, decisions, and actions precisely through the lens of Conflict Resolution (CR): a specific subject area of study with its own normative, theoretical, and practical advantages and shortcomings; and with a more comprehensive and indeed seminal conceptualisation of peacebuilding. The outcome is a far more nuanced assessment of failure and success of the EU’s peace endeavours in this context than can be obtained through a broad-brush approach to analysis.

and key words Politics and Social Practice of Collective Violence in Bohemian Lands 1944-1946 Doctoral Thesis Jaromír Mrňka, Charles University, Prague, 2017. The thesis is focused on the acts of collective violence that took place in the territory of the Bohemian lands in the period between years 1944 and 1946. Despite the traditional interpretation of the May 1945 as a crucial reversal, the general explanation focuses on the collective violence as a phenomenon overlapping traditional turning points. Remaining high amount of violent interactions is an element connecting the final war operations with the first weeks and months after. Applying concepts of political sociology (Charles Tilly), social psychology (Philip Zimbardo) and microsociology (Randall Collins) the thesis strive to capture interdependent nature of collective violence between its structural preconditions and situational dynamics. Based on the quantitative evaluation of the acts of collective violence, the first step outlines a macro social topography of collective violence. The main point is an identification of key actors of the politics of collective violence and their correlation to basic configurations of particular political regimes (i.e. occupational regime of the so called Protectorate and limited democratic regime of...

No description available.

This dissertation scrutinises two related claims that were particularly heightened in 2009 as the European Union (EU) was celebrating the first tenth anniversary of its European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the implementing arm of its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). First, the two policy frameworks allegedly embodied sufficient added value for bettering EU intervention for human protection purposes in third places. Second, the ESDP supposedly enabled the EU to make a difference in its response to two bloody wars that broke out in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) successively in 1996 and 1998. This thesis argues that the alleged added value and difference have been overstated at best. While various studies have taken a similar position, they have important shortcomings for at least four reasons: lack of a comprehensive account of the CFSP motives, capacities, and response; exclusive focus on civil and military operations; focus on the post-Second Congo War period; and a lack of conceptual clarity regarding two key terms – ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘peacebuilding’. This thesis goes beyond generalisation and undertakes a forensic examination of the CFSP statements, decisions, and actions precisely through the lens of Conflict Resolution (CR): a specific subject area of study with its own normative, theoretical, and practical advantages and shortcomings; and with a more comprehensive and indeed seminal conceptualisation of peacebuilding. The outcome is a far more nuanced assessment of failure and success of the EU’s peace endeavours in this context than can be obtained through a broad-brush approach to analysis / European Community-funded Sustainable Peacebuilding (SPBUILD) Research Training Network; University of Deusto’s ‘RETOS’ research group on socio-cultural and human rights challenges in a changing world.