Advertisement

Peace through Retribution or Reconciliation? Some Insights and Evidence from South-East Asia

  • Sorpong Peou

Abstract

Over the last two decades or so, liberal proponents of retributive justice (defined loosely as a form of judicial punishment through formal trials) in the West have been on the march under the globalist banner declaring a brave battle on behalf of those victimized by armed conflict and atrocity crime.1 Only retribution, not reconciliation through compromise and mercy, helps end war and builds peace in post-conflict societies. But if peacebuilding has its limits,2 we may need to ask why. I made a case against the principle of legal retribution in states where former mortal enemies are trapped in the insecurity dilemma.3 In recent years, South-East Asian leaders have also learned that retribution does not help end armed conflict or deter atrocity crime. Because of space constraints, this chapter relies on two country case studies — Cambodia and Timor-Leste — to help shed some light on this proposition. Some scholars provide critical perspectives on these cases, questioning whether the liberal peace is transferrable.4 This chapter contends that liberal peacebuilding has the potential to be more successful if the path of political reconciliation is taken more seriously.

Keywords

United Nations International Criminal Court Khmer Rouge Retributive Justice Mass Atrocity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Sorpong Peou, ‘Mass Atrocities under the Khmer Rouge Reign of Terror’, in State Violence in Asia, eds N. Ganesan and Sung Chull Kim (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2013);Google Scholar
  2. Sorpong Peou, ‘The Limits and Potential of Liberal Peacebuilding’, Asian Journal of Peacebuilding 2, no. 1 (2014): 37–60.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Roland Paris, At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett et al., ‘Peacebuilding: What Is in a Name?’ Global Governance 13, no. 1 (2007): 35–58.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Sorpong Peou, Neutralization in the Cambodia War: From Battlefield to Ballot-Box (Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    Oliver Richmond and Jason Franks, ‘Liberal Hubris? Virtual Peace in Cambodia’, Security Dialogue 38, no. 1 (2007): 27–48;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Oliver Richmond and Jason Franks, ‘Liberal Peacebuilding in Timor-Leste: The Emperor’s New Clothes’, International Peacekeeping 15, no. 2 (2008): 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 5.
    UNDP, Timor-Leste Human Development Report 2006: The Path out of Poverty (Dili: January 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 6.
    Sorpong Peou, Human Security Studies: Theories, Methods and Themes (Singapore and Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 7.
    ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001), 4.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Hun Joon Kim and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘How Do Human Rights Prosecutions Improve Human Rights after Transition?’ Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Rights Law 7, no. 1 (2012–2013): 69–90.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hun J. Kim, ‘Structural Determinants of Human Rights Prosecutions after Democratic Transition’, Journal of Peace Research 49, no. 2 (2012): 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chandra Lekha Sriram, ‘Transitional Justice and the Liberal Peace’, in New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding, eds Edward Newman, Roland Paris and Oliver Richmond (Tokyo and Paris: United Nations University Press, 2009), 122.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jack Goldsmith and Stephen D. Krasner, ‘The Limits of Idealism’, Daedalus 132, no. 47 (2003): 51.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jack Snyder and Leslie Vinjamuri, ‘Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice’, International Security 28, no. 3 (2003/04): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 18.
    Sorpong Peou, International Democracy Assistance for Peacebuilding: Cambodia and beyond (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 25.
    Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice Denied for East Timor’, 20 December 2002, http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/12/20/justice-denied-east-timor, accessed 20 March 2013.Google Scholar
  18. 26.
    Sergey Vasiliev, ‘Cure Worse than Disease? Comments on Four Final Decisions of the Court of Appeal East Timor Concerning Serious Crimes’, 2008, 54, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1718572, accessed 23 March 2013.Google Scholar
  19. 27.
    Elizabeth Stanley, Torture, Truth and Justice: The Case of Timor-Leste (London: Routledge, 2009).Google Scholar
  20. 30.
    Catherine Jenkins, ‘A Truth Commission for East Timor: Lessons from South Africa?’ Journal of Conflict and Security Law 7, no. 2 (2002): 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 31.
    Freedom House (2014) ‘Freedom in the World 2014: East Timor’, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/east-timor-0#.VF5TK_nF8fY, accessed 5 November 2014.Google Scholar
  22. 32.
    Eva Ottendorfer, ‘Contesting International Norms of Transitional Justice: The Case of Timor-Leste’, International Journal of Conflict and Violence 7, no. 1 (2013): 23–35;Google Scholar
  23. Deborah Cummins and Michael Leach, ‘Democracy Old and New: The Interaction of Modern and Traditional Authority in East Timorese Local Government’, Asian Politics and Policy 4, no. 1 (2102): 89–104;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lia Kent, ‘Integrating the “Gap” between Law and Justice: East Timor’s Serious Crimes Process’, Human Rights Quarterly 34, no. 4 (2012): 1021–1044;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Andrew Marriot, ‘Legal Professionals in Development: Timor-Leste’s Legislative Experiment: Analysis’, Conflict, Security & Development 9, no. 2 (2009): 239–263;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Padraig McAuliffe, ‘East Timor’s Community Reconciliation Process as a Model for Legal Pluralism in Criminal Justice’, The Electronic Law Journals Project 12, no. 2 (2008): 1–22;Google Scholar
  27. Roger Mac Ginty, ‘Indigenous Peace-Making versus the Liberal Peace’, Cooperation and Conflict 43, no. 2 (2008): 139–163;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dionisio Babo-Soares, ‘Nahe Biti: The Philosophy and Process of Grassroots Reconciliation (and Justice) in East Timor’, The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 5, no. 1 (2004): 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 33.
    Laura Grenfell, ‘Promoting the Rule of Law in Timor-Leste’, in Security, Development and Nation-Building in Timor-Leste, eds Vandra Harris and Andrew Goldsmith (London 6 New York: Routledge, 2011), 132.Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    Megan Hirst, Too Much Friendship, Too Little Truth: Monitoring Report on the Commission of Truth and Friendship in Indonesia and Timor-Leste (New York, NY: International Centre for Transitional Justice, January 2008), 1.Google Scholar
  31. 35.
    Sorpong Peou, ‘Democratization and Human Rights in Southeast Asia’, in The Routledge Handbook of Southeast Asian Democratization, ed. William Case (UK: Routledge, 2014).Google Scholar
  32. 37.
    Roman David and Susanne Y. P. Choi, ‘Getting Even or Getting Equal? Retributive Desires and Transitional Justice’, Political Psychology 30, no. 2 (2009): 161–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 38.
    David Rothkopf, National Insecurity: American Leadership in an Age of Fear (New York: Public Affairs, 2014).Google Scholar
  34. 39.
    John D. Inazu, ‘No Future without (Personal) Forgiveness: Reexamining the Role of Forgiveness in Transitional Justice’, Human Rights Review 10, no. 3 (2009): 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sorpong Peou 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sorpong Peou

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations