Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Versöhnung in Transitional-Justice-Prozessen

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
Handbuch Transitional Justice

Part of the book series: Springer NachschlageWissen ((SRS))

  • 217 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Versöhnung und Rechtsstaatlichkeit bilden zentrale Elemente im Prozess der Transitional Justice. Allerdings wurde lange Zeit davon ausgegangen, dass sich die beiden Konzepte in diesem Kontext gegenseitig ausschließen, indem das Streben nach Versöhnung, die konsequente Anwendung strafrechtlicher Prinzipien verbietet. Es werden anhand konkreter Fallbeispiele Versuche aufgezeigt, die beiden Konzepte in Mechanismen der Transitional Justice zu vereinen, indem vor allem Wahrheitskommissionen unterschiedliche Funktionen zugesprochen wurden. Auf internationaler Ebene wurde daraus ein komplementärer Ansatz entwickelt, der durch die Anwendung mehrerer Mechanismen der Transitional Justice, die gegenseitige Stärkung von Versöhnung und Rechtsstaatlichkeit propagierte. Wie der Aufarbeitungsprozess in Osttimor demonstriert, birgt dieser Ansatz jedoch neue Probleme und Risiken, indem er zur Diskreditierung beider Konzepte führen kann. Daraus lässt sich schließen, dass entgegen der normativ geführten Debatte um Transitional Justice, deren Mechanismen nur Initialzündungen für rechtsstaatliche Reformen und Versöhnungsprozesse sein können, die von den Folgeregimen über einen langen Zeitraum weiter getragen werden müssen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Akhavan, Payam. 1998. Justice in the Hague, peace in the former Yugoslawia? A commentary on the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal. Human Rights Quarterly 20(4): 737–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, Paige. 2009. How „transitions“ reshaped human rights: A conceptual history of transitional justice. Human Rights Quarterly 31(2): 321–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auckermann, Miriam J. 2002. Extraordinary evil, ordinary crime: A framework for understanding transitional justice. Harvard Human Rights Journal 15(1): 39–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield, David. 2006. On good terms. Clarifying reconciliation. Berghof report no. 14. Berlin: Berghof Center for for Conctructive Conflict Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, John. 2002. Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, John, Hilary Charlesworth, und Aderito Soares. 2012. Networked governance of freedom and tyranny. Peace in Timor Leste. Canberra: Australian National University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, Patrick. 2006. A new approach to restorative justice – East Timor’s community and reconciliation processes. In Transitional justice in the twenty-first century: Beyond truth versus justice, Hrsg. Naomi Roht-Arriaza und Javier Mariezcurrena, 177–205. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CAVR. 2005. Final report of the commission for truth, reception and reconciliation. http://www.cavr-timorleste.org/en/chegaReport.htm. Zugegriffen am 10.03.2013.

  • Chapman, Audrey. 2001. Truth commissions as instruments of forgiveness and reconciliation. In Forgiveness and reconciliation: Religion, public policy and conflict transformation, Hrsg. S. J. Helmick et al., 247–268. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, Audrey. 2009. Approaches to studying reconciliation. In Assessing the impact of transitional justice. Challenges for empirical research, Hrsg. Hugo van der Merwe et al., 143–172. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, David A. 1999. Reckoning with past wrongs: A normative framework. Ethics and International Affairs 13(1): 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECOSOC. 2002. Economic and social council. Report of the meeting group of experts on restorative justice. UN Doc E/CN.15/2002/5/Add.1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECOSOC. 2006. Promotion and protection of human rights. Study on the right to the truth. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, James L. 2004. Overcoming apartheid. Can truth reconcile a divided nation? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gusmao, Ray Kala Xanana. 2005. Address by H.E. the President Ray Kala Xanana Gusmao on the occasion of the presentation of the final report of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR), Dili, 31.10.2005. http://www.etan.org/et2005/october/31/31xana.htm. Zugegriffen am 20.07.2013.

  • Hayner, Priscilla. 1994. Fifteen truth commissions – 1974 to 1994: A comparative study. Human Rights Quarterly 16(4): 600–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayner, Priscilla. 2001. Unspeakable truths. Confronting state terror and atrocity. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, Pierre. 2006. Measuring the impact of punishment and forgiveness: A framework for evaluating transitional justice. International Review of the Red Cross 88(1): 19–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington, Samuel. 1991. The third wave. Democratization in the late 20th century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huyse, Luc, David Bloomfield, und Theresa Barnes. 2003. Reconciliation after violent conflict. A handbook. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ignatieff, Michael. 1996. Articles of faith. Index on Cencorship 5(2): 110–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, Lia. 2004. Unfullfilled expectations: Community views on CAVR’s community reconciliation process. Dili: Justice Sector Monitoring Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, Jeffrey. 2006. Balancing justice and reconciliation in East Timor. Critical Asian Studies 38(3): 271–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinfeldt, Rachel. 2005. Competing definitions of the rule of law. Carnegie papers. Rule of law series, Bd. 55. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment of International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritz, Neil. 1995. Transitional justice. How emerging democracies reckon with former regimes. vol 3. Laws, rulings, and reports. New York: United States Institute for Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritz, Neil J. 1997. Coming to terms with atrocities: A review of accountability mechanisms for mass violations of human right. Law and Contemporary Problems 59(4): 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larke, Ben. 2009. ‚And the truth shall set you free‘: Confessional trade-offs and community reconciliation in East Timor. Asian Journal of Social Sience 37(5): 646–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markel, Dan. 1999. The justice of amnesty? Towards a theory of retributivism in recovering states. University of Toronto Law Journal 49:389–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo A., Philippe C. Schmitter, und Laurence Whitehead. 1986. Transitions from authoritarian rule. Tentative conclusions about uncertain democracies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orentlicher, Diane F. 1991. Settling accounts: The duty to prosecute human rights violations of a prior regime. Yale Law Journal 100:2537–2615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottendörfer, Eva. 2013. Contesting international norms of transitional justice: The case of Timor Leste. International Journal of Conflict and Violence 7(1): 23–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popkin, Margaret, und Naomi Roht-Arriaza. 1995. Truth as justice: Investigatory commissions in Latin America. In Transitional justice. How emerging democracies reckon with former regimes. vol I general considerations, Hrsg. Neil Kritz, 262–289. New York: United States Institute for Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, Richard A. 2003. Law, pragmatism and democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SATRC. 2003. Final report of the South African truth and reconciliation commission. http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/index.htm. Zugegriffen am 01.03.2013.

  • Saunders, Rebecca. 2011. Questionable associations: The role of forgiveness in transitional justice. International Journal for Transitional Justice 5(2): 119–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Jack, und Leslie Vinjamuri. 2004. Trials and errors: Principle and pragmatism in strategies of international justice. International Security 3(4): 5–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromseth, Jane, David Wipperman, und Rosa Brooks. 2006. Can might make rights? Building the rule of law after military interventions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Teitel, Ruti. 2002. Humanity’s law: Rule of law for the new global politics. Cornell International Law Journal 35:355–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutu, Desmond. 1999. No future without forgiveness. London: Rider.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-SC. 2004. Provisional verbatim record of the security council meeting on post-conflict national reconciliation. Un Doc S/PV. 4903.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-SG. 2004. Report of the secretary-general on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies. UN doc S/2004/616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zyl, Paul. 1999. Dilemmas of transitional justice. The case of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. Journal of International Affairs 52(2): 647–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Richard A. 2001. The politics of truth and reconciliation in South Africa. Legitimizing the post-apartheid state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, Jan, und Nicolas Hachez. 2010. Transitional societies and the rule of law: A benchmark approach. Working papers no. 47. Leuven Center for Global Governance, Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalaquett, José. 1995. Balancing ethical imperatives and political constraints: The dilemma of new democracies confronting past human rights violations. In Transitional justice. How emerging democracies reckon with former regimes. vol. I: general considerations, Hrsg. Neil Kritz, 203–206. New York: United States Institute for Peace.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Programmbereich II: Internationale Institutionen, Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, Baseler Str. 27-31, 60329, Frankfurt, Deutschland

    Eva Ottendörfer

Authors
  1. Eva Ottendörfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Ottendörfer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Netherlands Institute of Human Rights Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Anja Mihr

  2. Universität Leipzig Theologische Fakultät, Leipzig, Sachsen, Germany

    Gert Pickel

  3. Univ. Duisburg-Essen Inst. f. Politikwissenschaft, Duisburg, Germany

    Susanne Pickel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this entry

Cite this entry

Ottendörfer, E. (2016). Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Versöhnung in Transitional-Justice-Prozessen. In: Mihr, A., Pickel, G., Pickel, S. (eds) Handbuch Transitional Justice. Springer NachschlageWissen. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02994-4_3-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02994-4_3-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-02994-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Versöhnung in Transitional-Justice-Prozessen
    Published:
    16 February 2016

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02994-4_3-2

  2. Original

    Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Versöhnung im osttimoresischen Aufarbeitungsprozess
    Published:
    07 July 2015

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02994-4_3-1

Search

Navigation