The South African Truth Commission was different to any other commission held in the past. The Commission had to balance the scales between a painful past and a peaceful future. The task in itself was not an easy one, considering the fact that the apartheid years spanned over many decades. It certainly was not an easy task to maintain a balance between blanket amnesty and legal prosecutions. This middle of the road policy leveled much criticism from all sides, ranging form political parties to victims and their families and the general public. However, the policy on amnesty was a crucial aspect in balancing the past with that of the future. Although the TRC had achieved its objectives, it had many shortcomings ranging from its original mandate, its workings right through to the final recommendations. The scope of the Commission was far too wide considering the fact that they had to cover human rights abuses spanning over the years 1960 to 1994. The mandated period for them to complete their task was very limited if one considers the fact that this was a unique Commission and many people had to be trained to carry out tasks especially on lower levels. The Committees established by the Commission did not have clear methods of working and the coordination between them was poor. The methodology followed by the TRC was flawed but we need to take time and consider the enormity of the task at hand. It was not only a transitional phase for the people of South Africa but for the new government as well. The TRC was not a well planned process. However one has to also consider that accountability had to be done as soon as possible or it would have lost its essence. Issues had to be faced as soon as possible. The Commission also received criticism for allowing religion into its doors, mainly Christian theology. However, in some ways, one has to consider the fact that most people who were affected by apartheid were Christian and they found comfort in the practice of the Commission. The National Party had to be accountable and yes, as leaders they should have apologized for what had happened. This should have been a point of issue for the Commission and one of the areas where they had failed to act. Notwithstanding all the negative aspects of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission much positivism brought to the country as a whole, sections of society and to individuals. Nothing short of a miracle can heal a country. The terms of reconciliation, forgiving and healing became acceptable terms to many who were affected by the period of apartheid. South African history was given an opportunity to be recorded. People were given an opportunity to clear their conscious and find peace in truth. For the first time it was possible to see beyond the pain that many had suffered. As a country we would have been much poorer had the truth not been told. I believe it was truly a necessary part of our history. Copyright / Dissertation (MHCS)--University of Pretoria, 2008. / Historical and Heritage Studies / unrestricted

This thesis seeks to examine the levels of support for African American reparations amongst minorities. After providing a historical account of redress efforts separated racial group and discussing factors that influence reparations, I argue that minority groups possess cross-racial linked fate (minority linked fate) that significantly impacts their political attitudes concerning reparations for African Americans. Additionally, I argue that higher levels of minority-linked fate will equate to significant support for reparations. The probit regressions reaffirm the initial hypotheses that minority-linked fate has a significant impact on support for African American reparations. However, the racial groups most affected were not suspected initially.

Some organizations considering tackling racial injustice are engaging in historical accountability processes for past harms. Here, I explore three cases of organizational historical accountability: APA’s public apology and action plan to address its history of perpetuating racism, Georgetown University grappling with its history of slavery, and the land transfer from Yale Union to the Native Arts and Culture Foundation as an act of land re-matriation. Using an exploratory case study approach based on analysis of publicly available documents, 16 interviews with involved stakeholders and 10 interviews with academics and activists, I explore these organizations’ processes of historical accountability, the facilitating factors and challenges these organizations encountered, and the elements stakeholders saw as particularly essential to these projects. These case studies exemplify ways these processes can connect past patterns with present and future dynamics, deconstruct destructive dynamics, reconstruct constructive dynamics, and also maintain existing patterns. These case studies reveal stakeholders often have different aims and lenses for viewing these processes. Given these differences, I propose five orientations for the ways organizations can take on historical accountability projects: perform, reform, repair, dismantle, and realign. These orientations are not mutually exclusive, but may help distinguish different aims, logics, theories of change, and elements that undergird historical accountability projects aimed at racial justice.

No description available.

This essay seeks to give an account of the German-Herero/Nama conflict of 1903-1907, often labelled the first genocide of the 20th century, and to address the question, whether the Namibian tribes of the Herero and Nama have the right to claim reparations from Germany. After explaining the historical narrative, a legal discussion is held which underlines the complexity of the issue, bringing in the difficulty of the definition of “genocide” as a legal term, the question of German state succession, as well as the domestic struggles of contemporary Namibian politics. With all factors taken into consideration the conclusion is reached that the question is not answerable with a simple “yes” or “no”, but must ultimately be solved in direct negotiations between the involved parties.

Les gouvernants d'État qui émergent de conflits politiques - guerre civile, dictature - sont confrontés à des demandes que inconciliables que les auteurs estiment pourtant indispensables. Ils font face à l'exigence de justice pénale formulées par les victimes et la revendication d'impunité émanant des auteurs de crimes, très souvent, constitués par les anciens responsables de l'État. Le châtiment, en effet, ne permet ni la pacification ni la démocratisation.Il devient, dès lors, explicite que la sortie de crise peut prendre des voies autres que celle de la sanction pénale. La justice réparatrice apparaît ainsi comme un type de justice susceptible de faire droit aux demandes des offenseurs et des offensés en favorisant la paix et la démocratisation. On lui adresse pourtant des critiques ayant trait à la déresponsabilisation des individus ou à l'incrimination de tout le monde dans l'exécution des crimes perpétrés. L'objectif ultime est de favoriser la délibération, entre les offenseurs et les offensés, sur les crimes. Il faut cependant prémunir un tel dialogue contre les risques d'instrumentalisation. Dans les Commissions Vérité le discours tourne autour essentiellement des thématiques des droits de l'homme, des excuses, du pardon et de l'amnistie. Toutefois, l'usage de ces notions ne fait pas disparaître comme enchantement la haine de certaines victimes. / The rulers of state policy emerging from conflict – civil war, dictatorship – face irreconcilable demands that their authors consider, however, essential. They face the requirements of criminal justice formulated by victims and the demands of impunity emanating from the perpetrators, often constituted by former officials in charge of the state. The punishment, indeed, does not allow neither the peace nor the democratization. It is therefore clear that the exit of the crisis can take ways other than the punishment. Restorative justice appears as a kind of justice that may grant the requests of offenders and offended by promoting the peace and the democratization. Yet it faces critics relating to the disempowerment of individuals and the criminalization of everyone in the execution of the committed crimes. The ultimate goal is to foster discussion between the offenders and the offended. It is, however, necessary to protect such a dialogue against the risk of instrumentalization. In Truth Commissions, the discourse turns essentially around the themes of human rights, apologies, forgiveness and amnesty. However the use of these concepts does not magically make disappeared the hatred of some victims.

Thesis (M. Dev.) -- University of Limpopo, 2003 / Refer to the document

Transitional Justice bezeichnet staatliche Anstrengungen um vergangene Menschenrechtsverletzungen am Ende von Represionen aufzuarbeiten. Reparationszahlungen an die Opfer, die eines der Hauptinstrumente staatlicher Aufarbeitung darstellen können, blieben in der Transitional Justice-Literatur vergleichweise unerforscht. Dieses Buch versucht diese Lücke zu schließen und fragt, warum manche Staaten solche Programme eingeleitet haben, während andere junge Demokratien darauf verzichteten. Dabei setzt sie Reparationszahlungen in den Kontext anderer Transitional Justice-Maßnahmen und greift gleichzeitig zwei Haupterklärungsansätze für gerichtliche Verfahren und Wahrheitskommissionen auf. In diesem Zusammenhang ist die Frage, inwieweit Transitional Justice aus moralischer Überzeugung oder aus taktischem Kalkül der neuen Eliten eingeleitet wurde. In dem die Arbeit diese Frage am Beispiel der Zahlung von Entschädigungsleistungen diskutiert, kann sie auch Aussagen darüber machen, wie valide die bestehenden Erklärungsansätze für Transitional Justice sind. Anhand der südamerikanischen Regimewechsel in den 1980ern wird aufgezeigt, dass Reparationszahlungen oft zur Legitimation von Amnestien verwendet wurden. Wenn Täter und Opfer relativ starkes Drohpotential besaßen, versuchten Regierungen den Opfern durch Entschädigung entgegenzukommen um Amnestien für die Täter bei gleichzeitiger Anerkennung der Taten zu rechtfertigen. Entschädigungszahlungen wurden somit oft aus strategischen Erwägungen geleistet, was man bei der normativen Bewertung dieser Programme berücksichtigen sollte. / Transitional justice refers to approaches that states use to address past human rights violations at the end of violence and repression. Providing reparations to victims, which can be understood as one of the main instruments of Transitional Justice, has so far received relatively little attention in the Transitional Justice literature. This book tries to fill this gap and asks why some states chose to implement reparation programs while others did not. Putting reparations into context this book adapts explanations for the realization of trials and truth commissions and asks whether they also hold for reparations. The main question is, whether state elites chose Transitional Justice mechanisms for moral or tactical reasons. Hence, by analyzing reparations this book can also help us to reappraise the validity of popular explanations for other Transitional Justice mechanisms. Studying the democratic transitions in South America in the 1980ies this book shows that reparations were often paid to justify amnesty decisions for the perpetrators. When perpetrators and victims posed a credible threat for the incumbents, they implemented reparation programs while crimes of the past went unpunished. In most cases reparations were paid due to tactical convenience rather than moral commitment, which should be considered when we evaluate the concept of reparations.

Although, the histories of forced sterilizations and eugenics practices have been all but forgotten by most, these subjects gained national attention again when the state of North Carolina repealed its sterilization law in 2003. The history of forced sterilization in the United States began with a eugenics based demand to wipe out populations that were constructed as inferior. The evolution of who was sterilized shifted in accordance to changing national social perception of who was ‘unfit’ to reproduce, from the developmentally disabled to ‘immoral’ and ‘irresponsible’ women. North Carolina has also taken unprecedented steps towards providing reparations for the living victims of the statute. The history, current sentiments, and unique components of compulsory sterilization in North Carolina help to illustrate why the government has taken such proactive steps in offering restitution while others have not. What happened in North Carolina and throughout the eugenics movement in the United States are poignant examples of the power of social constructions. Social constructions allows those with power, in this case the state, to enforce them, using policy and other mechanisms, to divide up members of society. With this power to divide groups of people comes the ability to use this constructed sense of otherness as a means to control and mistreat these populations.

Les gouvernants d'État qui émergent de conflits politiques - guerre civile, dictature - sont confrontés à des demandes que inconciliables que les auteurs estiment pourtant indispensables. Ils font face à l'exigence de justice pénale formulées par les victimes et la revendication d'impunité émanant des auteurs de crimes, très souvent, constitués par les anciens responsables de l'État. Le châtiment, en effet, ne permet ni la pacification ni la démocratisation.Il devient, dès lors, explicite que la sortie de crise peut prendre des voies autres que celle de la sanction pénale. La justice réparatrice apparaît ainsi comme un type de justice susceptible de faire droit aux demandes des offenseurs et des offensés en favorisant la paix et la démocratisation. On lui adresse pourtant des critiques ayant trait à la déresponsabilisation des individus ou à l'incrimination de tout le monde dans l'exécution des crimes perpétrés. L'objectif ultime est de favoriser la délibération, entre les offenseurs et les offensés, sur les crimes. Il faut cependant prémunir un tel dialogue contre les risques d'instrumentalisation. Dans les Commissions Vérité le discours tourne autour essentiellement des thématiques des droits de l'homme, des excuses, du pardon et de l'amnistie. Toutefois, l'usage de ces notions ne fait pas disparaître comme enchantement la haine de certaines victimes. / The rulers of state policy emerging from conflict – civil war, dictatorship – face irreconcilable demands that their authors consider, however, essential. They face the requirements of criminal justice formulated by victims and the demands of impunity emanating from the perpetrators, often constituted by former officials in charge of the state. The punishment, indeed, does not allow neither the peace nor the democratization. It is therefore clear that the exit of the crisis can take ways other than the punishment. Restorative justice appears as a kind of justice that may grant the requests of offenders and offended by promoting the peace and the democratization. Yet it faces critics relating to the disempowerment of individuals and the criminalization of everyone in the execution of the committed crimes. The ultimate goal is to foster discussion between the offenders and the offended. It is, however, necessary to protect such a dialogue against the risk of instrumentalization. In Truth Commissions, the discourse turns essentially around the themes of human rights, apologies, forgiveness and amnesty. However the use of these concepts does not magically make disappeared the hatred of some victims.