A line under the past: Performative temporal segregation in transitional justice

IF 1 2区 社会学 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
T. Bentley
{"title":"A line under the past: Performative temporal segregation in transitional justice","authors":"T. Bentley","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2021.1979388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After human rights violations, states frequently employ the discourse of “closure” or “drawing a line under the past” as an exculpatory device that situates the wrongdoing in an ontologically discreet and normatively inferior past, a maneuver I term “performative temporal segregation.” Recognizing the United Kingdom’s 2010 apology for Bloody Sunday as an example of temporal segregation, I draw on interviews with relatives of Bloody Sunday victims and other stakeholders to examine how the apology’s recipients have variously resisted and embraced the performative segregating of time. Although many relatives remain enthusiastic about the apology, temporal segregation is challenged by others in three ways: (1) by deriding the apology, (2) by framing it as a stepping stone toward justice rather than an endpoint, and (3) by critically reassessing it over time. I thereby demonstrate that victims and governments can have irreconcilable conceptions of the purpose of apology as a transitional justice mechanism. Nevertheless, participants almost universally embraced closure as a desirable and achievable objective, primarily through prosecutions. This, ironically, entails recognizing that the colonial state can dispense justice and arbitrate on temporality.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2021.1979388","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract After human rights violations, states frequently employ the discourse of “closure” or “drawing a line under the past” as an exculpatory device that situates the wrongdoing in an ontologically discreet and normatively inferior past, a maneuver I term “performative temporal segregation.” Recognizing the United Kingdom’s 2010 apology for Bloody Sunday as an example of temporal segregation, I draw on interviews with relatives of Bloody Sunday victims and other stakeholders to examine how the apology’s recipients have variously resisted and embraced the performative segregating of time. Although many relatives remain enthusiastic about the apology, temporal segregation is challenged by others in three ways: (1) by deriding the apology, (2) by framing it as a stepping stone toward justice rather than an endpoint, and (3) by critically reassessing it over time. I thereby demonstrate that victims and governments can have irreconcilable conceptions of the purpose of apology as a transitional justice mechanism. Nevertheless, participants almost universally embraced closure as a desirable and achievable objective, primarily through prosecutions. This, ironically, entails recognizing that the colonial state can dispense justice and arbitrate on temporality.
过去的一条线:过渡时期司法中的表演性时间隔离
摘要在侵犯人权之后,国家经常使用“结束”或“在过去下划清界限”的话语作为开脱罪责的手段,将不法行为置于本体上谨慎和规范上低劣的过去,我称之为“表演性时间隔离”。“我认识到英国2010年对血腥星期日的道歉是时间隔离的一个例子,因此我采访了血腥星期日受害者的亲属和其他利益相关者,以了解道歉的接受者是如何抵制和接受表演性的时间隔离的。尽管许多亲属仍然对道歉充满热情,但时间隔离在三个方面受到了其他人的挑战:(1)嘲笑道歉,(2)将其视为走向正义的垫脚石,而不是终点,以及(3)随着时间的推移,对其进行批判性的重新评估。因此,我表明,受害者和政府可能对道歉作为一种过渡司法机制的目的有着不可调和的概念。尽管如此,与会者几乎普遍认为关闭是一个可取和可实现的目标,主要是通过起诉。具有讽刺意味的是,这意味着承认殖民国家可以伸张正义,并对暂时性进行仲裁。
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
3.10
自引率
21.10%
发文量
0
×
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