The three Rs: retributive justice, restorative justice, and reconciliation
The three Rs: retributive justice, restorative justice, and reconciliation
复制标题
三个R：报应性正义、恢复性正义和和解
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Janine Natalya Clark
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Janine Natalya Clark
本文探讨报应性正义、恢复性正义与和解之间的关系。以前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭（ICTY）和卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭（ICTR）为案例研究，首先考察国际战争罪法庭作为报应性司法的施行者是否能够为冲突后社会的和解做出贡献。据他们的支持者称，国际战争罪罪犯可以通过三种主要方式促进和解：确保正义得到伸张；查明所犯罪行的真相；并通过个体化内疚。有人认为这些说法都是有缺陷的。战争罪法庭是冲突后社会建设和平进程的重要组成部分，但有人认为，它们所提供的报应性正义并不是促进和解的最有效手段。本文的核心前提是，恢复性司法最有可能启动和进一步和解，因此应该补充报应性司法。为了证明恢复性司法在实践中的价值，它提供了卢旺达和前南斯拉夫恢复性司法进程的一些例子。
This article explores the relationship between retributive justice, restorative justice, and reconciliation. Using the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) as case studies, it begins by examining whether international war crimes tribunals, as dispensers of retributive justice, can contribute to reconciliation in post‐conflict societies. According to their supporters, international war crimes criminals can foster reconciliation in three principal ways: by seeing that justice is done; by establishing the truth about crimes committed; and by individualizing guilt. It will be argued that each of these claims is flawed. War crimes tribunals are an important part of the peace‐building process in post‐conflict societies but it is argued that the retributive justice they deliver is not the most effective means to promote reconciliation. The article’s core premise is that restorative justice has the greatest potential to initiate and further reconciliation and should, therefore, complement the administration of retributive justice. To demonstrate the value of restorative justice in practice, it provides some examples of restorative processes in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia.