Measuring Up: A Dialogical Model for Assuring a Reparative Process

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Lisa J. Laplante, Ana María Reyes
{"title":"Measuring Up: A Dialogical Model for Assuring a Reparative Process","authors":"Lisa J. Laplante, Ana María Reyes","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2022.86","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International law obliges governments to assure adequate and effective reparations for human rights violations. To date, most evaluations of such programs focus on outcomes while overlooking the process of how the state engaged victims, or not, in the determination of what they needed to feel repaired. A consensus now points toward the need to better involve beneficiaries in reparations programs in the process of determining these outcomes, yet there remains a need to better understand how to assure meaningful and effective participation. In response, the authors present an expansive view of the right to participation that would oblige governments to assure the quality of this participation in all stages of reparation programming, including design, implementation, and evaluation. They argue that reparative processes are, in themselves, forms of reparation, which go toward citizen restitution. They offer preliminary guidelines on how to assure reparative processes, as well as their evaluation, through a dialogical model that helps reorient the view of “victims” to being active agents in determining not only appropriate reparations but also larger transformations. Reparative processes shift the focus of evaluation to look beyond outcomes and toward the quality of the design and implementation processes, which, if flawed, may ultimately undermine the overall impact of any reparation program.","PeriodicalId":47418,"journal":{"name":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2022.86","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

International law obliges governments to assure adequate and effective reparations for human rights violations. To date, most evaluations of such programs focus on outcomes while overlooking the process of how the state engaged victims, or not, in the determination of what they needed to feel repaired. A consensus now points toward the need to better involve beneficiaries in reparations programs in the process of determining these outcomes, yet there remains a need to better understand how to assure meaningful and effective participation. In response, the authors present an expansive view of the right to participation that would oblige governments to assure the quality of this participation in all stages of reparation programming, including design, implementation, and evaluation. They argue that reparative processes are, in themselves, forms of reparation, which go toward citizen restitution. They offer preliminary guidelines on how to assure reparative processes, as well as their evaluation, through a dialogical model that helps reorient the view of “victims” to being active agents in determining not only appropriate reparations but also larger transformations. Reparative processes shift the focus of evaluation to look beyond outcomes and toward the quality of the design and implementation processes, which, if flawed, may ultimately undermine the overall impact of any reparation program.
衡量:确保修复过程的对话模型
国际法要求各国政府确保对侵犯人权行为给予充分和有效的赔偿。迄今为止,对此类项目的大多数评估都集中在结果上,而忽视了国家如何让受害者参与其中的过程,或者是否参与其中,以确定他们需要什么来感到修复。现在的共识是,在确定这些结果的过程中,需要更好地让受益人参与赔偿项目,但仍需要更好地了解如何确保有意义和有效的参与。作为回应,作者提出了参与权的广泛观点,这将迫使政府在修复规划的各个阶段,包括设计、实施和评估,确保这种参与的质量。他们认为,赔偿程序本身就是一种赔偿形式,走向公民的恢复。它们提供了关于如何确保赔偿进程及其评价的初步指导方针,通过对话模式帮助将“受害者”的观点重新定位为不仅是决定适当赔偿而且是决定更大转变的积极行动者。修复过程将评估的重点转移到结果之外,而转向设计和实施过程的质量,如果有缺陷,最终可能会破坏任何修复计划的整体影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信