No Stone Unturned: Legacies of Cemetery Destruction during Ethnic Conflict and New Approaches to Transitional Justice

摘要：目睹了1993年波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那冲突期间塞尔维亚人摧毁巴尼亚卢卡清真寺和墓地的事件，一位穆斯林居民哀叹道：“他们好像把我们的心都挖出来了。他们想让我们明白，我们在这里没有立足之地”(Walasek 2015：29)。破坏文化遗产正在被公认为种族暴力和种族灭绝的基本信条。因为文化遗产充满了集体归属的象征意义，所以它很容易受到反对者的攻击，这些反对者试图抹去“他者”的有形证据。通过这种暴力，社会边界被重新组织，改变了集体身份。然而，在过渡时期司法中，文化破坏对集体身份形成的重大遗产被忽视，在没有系统编纂或分析的研究中仅有传闻。过渡时期司法的年轻领域--处理战争罪和侵犯人权的机制--已陷入僵局(Tetal 2000)。当代的批评比比皆是，强调去上下文的“一刀切”和“自上而下”的解决方案(Nagy 2008)，忽视性别暴力模式(Tabak 2011)，及其可能造成进一步伤害的颠覆(Loyle和Davenport 2016)。我认为，过渡司法的不足之处在于，未能理解冲突动态本身如何改变社区身份，忽视了塑造社区身份及其冲突后需求的暴力过程和战时经历。我的研究解决了这个学术和政策上的差距。如果我们要建立直接满足当地社区需要的机制，我们首先必须了解暴力如何改变当地社区。我的研究最终将有助于以社区为基础的草根方法重新概念化过渡司法的新兴学术研究(Giblin 2014；Moffett等人)。2019年)，为使用文化破坏方法的暴力遗产提供了新的发现。我的发现最终将加强地方知情的方法，以重新思考过渡司法，但这项研究的范围是深入探索战时文化破坏如何改变社会和集体认同。我将采用定性的比较分析，在种族冲突期间的两个墓地破坏案例-从关系的角度考察这种暴力对集体认同形成的影响和遗留。比较提供了比单一案例更强的分析基线，提供了假设生成而不削弱重点分析(Hall 2003)。笔者将采用语篇分析的混合方法，主要是半结构化访谈和视觉分析。话语是通过不同的视觉和语言机制表达出来的，所以使用混合方法将提供对文化破坏的未知维度的洞察。我的案例是1993年在波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那迪维奇和阿塞拜疆纳希切万的墓地遭到破坏，从1998年开始，在教科文组织要求暂时停止之后，于2005年达到顶峰。墓地破坏--在种族民族主义暴力期间很常见--是理解文化暴力的社会影响的有力工具，因为它跨越了当代内部冲突的多个层面：破坏日常生活，破坏历史，破坏集体，也破坏深刻的个人。然而，与其他文物项目不同的是，墓地不能按照传统方式进行“重建”。鉴于重建遗产的传统目标是将其恢复到战前的“真实”状态(Moffett等人2019：4)，墓地的破坏要求我们创新地思考重建本身的根本意图。

No Stone Unturned: Legacies of Cemetery Destruction during Ethnic Conflict and New Approaches to Transitional JusticeSummary:Witnessing the Serb destruction of the mosque and cemetery in Banja Luka in 1993, during the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a Muslim resident lamented that: 'It is as though they have torn our heart out. They want us to understand we have no place here' (Walasek 2015: 29).The destruction of cultural heritage is gaining recognition as a fundamental tenet of ethnic violence and genocide. Because cultural heritage is imbued with symbolism of collective belonging, it is vulnerable to opponents seeking to erase visible evidence of the 'other'. Through such violence, societal boundaries are reorganised, transforming collective identities. However, the significant legacy of cultural destruction on collective identity formation is neglected in transitional justice, featuring anecdotally in studies without systematic codification or analysis.The young field of transitional justice - the mechanisms addressing war crimes and human rights violations (Teital 2000) - has reached an impasse. Contemporary critiques abound, highlighting decontextualised 'one-size-fits-all' and 'top-down' solutions (Nagy 2008), the neglect of gendered patterns of violence (Tabak 2011), and its possible subversion to inflict further harm (Loyle and Davenport 2016). I argue that shortcomings in transitional justice are underpinned by a failure to understand how communal identities are changed by conflict dynamics themselves, overlooking the processes of violence and wartime experiences which shape communities' identities and their post-conflict needs. My research addresses this scholarly and policy gap. We first must understand how violence transforms local communities if we are then to develop mechanisms directly addressing their needs. My research will ultimately contribute to emerging scholarships on community-based, grassroots approaches to reconceptualising transitional justice (Giblin 2014; Moffett et al. 2019), offering novel findings to legacies of violence using cultural destruction methods. My findings will ultimately strengthen locally-informed approaches to rethinking transitional justice, but the scope of this research is an in-depth exploration of how wartime cultural destruction transforms societies and collective identities.I will employ Qualitative Comparative Analysis between two cases of cemetery destruction during ethnic conflict - examining the impact and legacy of this violence on collective identity formation from a relational perspective. Comparison provides a stronger analytical baseline than a single case, offering hypothesis-generation without weakening focused analysis (Hall 2003). I will use discourse analysis of mixed methods, principally semi-structured interviews and visual analysis. Discourses are articulated through diverse visual and verbal mechanisms, so employing mixed-methods will offer insight into unexplored dimensions of cultural destruction. My cases are the cemetery destruction in Divic, Bosnia-Herzegovina, in 1993, and in Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan, beginning in 1998 and, following temporary cessation requested by UNESCO, culminating in 2005. Cemetery destruction - common during ethno-nationalist violence - is a powerful tool with which to understand the social impact of cultural violence because it straddles multiple dimensions of contemporary internal conflict: destruction of the everyday, destruction of the historical, destruction of the collective, and also destruction of the deeply personal. However, unlike other heritage items, cemeteries cannot be conventionally 'reconstructed'. Given that the traditional aim of rebuilding heritage is returning it to its prewar 'authentic' state (Moffett et al 2019: 4), cemetery destruction requires that we think innovatively about the underlying intention of reconstruction itself.