过渡时期司法级联

Aleksandar Maršavelski, J. Braithwaite
{"title":"过渡时期司法级联","authors":"Aleksandar Maršavelski, J. Braithwaite","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3380304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mainstream discussion about transitional justice swings between the International Criminal Court (ICC), hybrid and national criminal justice responses. Fieldwork in former Yugoslavia (as part of the Peacebuilding Compared Project) inform integration of a three-level transitional justice response, which minimizes criminal justice intervention for lower-level actors and maximizes impact at the top. A bottom level is a restorative justice response that has the task of addressing the greatest number of individual offenders (mainly foot soldiers and low-ranking military officials) and their victims. Instead of court trials, the primary transitional justice mechanism would be a reparation and reconciliation commission, established and supported by a specialized international unit designed for that purpose (International Reparation and Reconciliation Support Unit - IRRSU). The IRRSU would be affiliated with the United Nations and it would move from one post-conflict region to another to provide support where it is needed. Yet the Commission itself would be locally based and composed of local members. Its primary task is reconciling communities and providing reparations to victims, but the hope is that the positive impact of restorative justice would cascade beyond that. Restorative justice would aim to stop denial policies at their root, provide immediate reparations to victims and move quickly to help collect the evidence about individual crimes when there is a need to move up the criminal enforcement pyramid. The bottom-level national response would boost the efficiency of a mid-level internationalized response. Mid-level response would be composed of an international transitional justice unit (ITJU) integrated into national criminal justice administration. The ITJU, also established by the UN or in cooperation with major regional organizations, would move from one post-conflict region to another. It would include international staff (judges, prosecutors, police, military and other peacebuilding professionals). The ITJU would work with national judiciaries and police to indict and arrest middle-ranking officials and those who failed to cooperate at the bottom level. Uncooperative low level defendants would be given a second chance to cooperate in a plea-bargaining process. Finally, the top response would process the high-ranking officials who are most responsible for mass atrocities (including heads of state, defense ministers and generals). These individuals would be tried at the ICC because post-conflict national criminal justice administrations, even where there is strong international support, typically struggle in such cases to deliver fair trials that provide adequate satisfaction to victims.","PeriodicalId":261121,"journal":{"name":"CJRN: Restorative Justice (Topic)","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transitional Justice Cascades\",\"authors\":\"Aleksandar Maršavelski, J. Braithwaite\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3380304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mainstream discussion about transitional justice swings between the International Criminal Court (ICC), hybrid and national criminal justice responses. Fieldwork in former Yugoslavia (as part of the Peacebuilding Compared Project) inform integration of a three-level transitional justice response, which minimizes criminal justice intervention for lower-level actors and maximizes impact at the top. A bottom level is a restorative justice response that has the task of addressing the greatest number of individual offenders (mainly foot soldiers and low-ranking military officials) and their victims. Instead of court trials, the primary transitional justice mechanism would be a reparation and reconciliation commission, established and supported by a specialized international unit designed for that purpose (International Reparation and Reconciliation Support Unit - IRRSU). The IRRSU would be affiliated with the United Nations and it would move from one post-conflict region to another to provide support where it is needed. Yet the Commission itself would be locally based and composed of local members. Its primary task is reconciling communities and providing reparations to victims, but the hope is that the positive impact of restorative justice would cascade beyond that. Restorative justice would aim to stop denial policies at their root, provide immediate reparations to victims and move quickly to help collect the evidence about individual crimes when there is a need to move up the criminal enforcement pyramid. The bottom-level national response would boost the efficiency of a mid-level internationalized response. Mid-level response would be composed of an international transitional justice unit (ITJU) integrated into national criminal justice administration. The ITJU, also established by the UN or in cooperation with major regional organizations, would move from one post-conflict region to another. It would include international staff (judges, prosecutors, police, military and other peacebuilding professionals). The ITJU would work with national judiciaries and police to indict and arrest middle-ranking officials and those who failed to cooperate at the bottom level. Uncooperative low level defendants would be given a second chance to cooperate in a plea-bargaining process. Finally, the top response would process the high-ranking officials who are most responsible for mass atrocities (including heads of state, defense ministers and generals). These individuals would be tried at the ICC because post-conflict national criminal justice administrations, even where there is strong international support, typically struggle in such cases to deliver fair trials that provide adequate satisfaction to victims.\",\"PeriodicalId\":261121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CJRN: Restorative Justice (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CJRN: Restorative Justice (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3380304\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJRN: Restorative Justice (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3380304","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

关于过渡时期司法的主流讨论在国际刑事法院(ICC)、混合司法和国家刑事司法回应之间摇摆不定。在前南斯拉夫的实地工作(作为建设和平比较项目的一部分)为三级过渡时期司法对策的整合提供了信息,该对策最大限度地减少了对较低级别行为者的刑事司法干预,并最大限度地提高了对高层的影响。最底层是恢复性司法对策,其任务是处理最多数量的个别罪犯(主要是步兵和低级军官)及其受害者。主要的过渡时期司法机制将不是法庭审判,而是一个赔偿与和解委员会,由专门为此目的设立的一个国际单位(国际赔偿与和解支助股)设立和支助。内部调查团将隶属于联合国,它将从一个冲突后区域移到另一个冲突后区域,在需要的地方提供支助。然而,委员会本身将以当地为基础,由当地成员组成。它的主要任务是和解社区和向受害者提供赔偿,但希望恢复性司法的积极影响能超越这些。恢复性司法旨在从根本上阻止拒绝政策,立即向受害者提供赔偿,并在需要向刑事执法金字塔上升时迅速采取行动,帮助收集有关个人犯罪的证据。底层的国家反应将提高中层的国际化反应的效率。中级反应将由一个纳入国家刑事司法行政的国际过渡时期司法股组成。ITJU也由联合国设立或与主要区域组织合作设立,将从一个冲突后区域转移到另一个冲突后区域。它将包括国际工作人员(法官、检察官、警察、军事人员和其他建设和平专业人员)。ITJU将与国家司法机构和警察合作,起诉和逮捕中级官员和那些在底层不合作的官员。不合作的低级别被告将在辩诉交易过程中获得第二次合作的机会。最后,最高反应将处理对大规模暴行负有最大责任的高级官员(包括国家元首、国防部长和将军)。这些人将在国际刑事法院受审,因为冲突后的国家刑事司法当局,即使在有强有力的国际支持的情况下,通常也难以在这种情况下进行公平审判,使受害者充分满意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Transitional Justice Cascades
Mainstream discussion about transitional justice swings between the International Criminal Court (ICC), hybrid and national criminal justice responses. Fieldwork in former Yugoslavia (as part of the Peacebuilding Compared Project) inform integration of a three-level transitional justice response, which minimizes criminal justice intervention for lower-level actors and maximizes impact at the top. A bottom level is a restorative justice response that has the task of addressing the greatest number of individual offenders (mainly foot soldiers and low-ranking military officials) and their victims. Instead of court trials, the primary transitional justice mechanism would be a reparation and reconciliation commission, established and supported by a specialized international unit designed for that purpose (International Reparation and Reconciliation Support Unit - IRRSU). The IRRSU would be affiliated with the United Nations and it would move from one post-conflict region to another to provide support where it is needed. Yet the Commission itself would be locally based and composed of local members. Its primary task is reconciling communities and providing reparations to victims, but the hope is that the positive impact of restorative justice would cascade beyond that. Restorative justice would aim to stop denial policies at their root, provide immediate reparations to victims and move quickly to help collect the evidence about individual crimes when there is a need to move up the criminal enforcement pyramid. The bottom-level national response would boost the efficiency of a mid-level internationalized response. Mid-level response would be composed of an international transitional justice unit (ITJU) integrated into national criminal justice administration. The ITJU, also established by the UN or in cooperation with major regional organizations, would move from one post-conflict region to another. It would include international staff (judges, prosecutors, police, military and other peacebuilding professionals). The ITJU would work with national judiciaries and police to indict and arrest middle-ranking officials and those who failed to cooperate at the bottom level. Uncooperative low level defendants would be given a second chance to cooperate in a plea-bargaining process. Finally, the top response would process the high-ranking officials who are most responsible for mass atrocities (including heads of state, defense ministers and generals). These individuals would be tried at the ICC because post-conflict national criminal justice administrations, even where there is strong international support, typically struggle in such cases to deliver fair trials that provide adequate satisfaction to victims.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信