| Popis: |
This chapter highlights one of the classical and most disputed debates in transitional literature: the ethical justification of the transitional justice measures, as opposed to its legal dimensions. By employing a conceptual analysis to spell out the 'retributive' and 'holistic' conceptions of justice, it argues that both views fail to fully tailor their normative framework to the empirical conditions in which such institutions are implemented (e.g. large-scale wrongdoings and institutional weakness). In this sense, the chapter draws out a proposal that synthesizes the motivating concerns behind both positions, and attempts to overcome the diagnosed flaws, by drawing a conceptual bridge between the two opposing views. Rather than advocating for one position or the other, it tries to articulate the crucial insights of both views in light of the victims' right to justice. It suggests that transitional justice measures should be oriented towards creating appropriate conditions to enable and legitimize the future exercise of standardized procedures for redress. |
