Judiciary Involvement in Authoritarian Repression and Transitional Justice: The Spanish Case in Comparative Perspective
Judiciary Involvement in Authoritarian Repression and Transitional Justice: The Spanish Case in Comparative Perspective
复制标题
司法机构参与独裁镇压和过渡时期司法：比较视角下的西班牙案例
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Paloma Aguilar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Paloma Aguilar
为什么有些民主国家在起诉执政时期的侵犯人权行为或公开揭露镇压真相方面取得了相当大的进展，而另一些民主国家仍然有大赦法，甚至阻止或至少阻碍对这种侵权行为进行司法审查？本文比较了西班牙，智利和阿根廷，以了解他们对比的镇压历史对他们如何处理他们的暴力过去的影响。我评估的是，更大程度的法律的镇压和司法部门对镇压的直接参与，是否可以解释为什么在起诉侵犯人权行为的责任人、设立真相委员会或废除民主化期间过去的政治判决方面存在更大的阻力。一旦民主得到巩固，可能会出现不同的动态，但司法共谋的历史已被证明是理解西班牙持续缺乏司法问责的关键因素。
Why have some democracies made considerable progress in prosecuting dictatorship-era human rights violations or in publicly exposing the truth about repression while others still have amnesty laws that prevent, or at least hinder, even the judicial review of such abuses? This article compares Spain, Chile and Argentina to understand the impact of their contrasting histories of repression on how they have dealt with their violent pasts. I assess whether a greater degree of legal repression and direct judicial involvement in repression explains why there is more resistance to prosecuting those responsible for human rights violations, establishing truth commissions or annulling the political sentences of the past during democratization. Once democracy has been consolidated, different dynamics may emerge, but this history of judicial complicity has proved to be a key factor in understanding the continuous lack of judicial accountability in Spain.