Transitional Justice as Ordinary Justice
Transitional Justice as Ordinary Justice
复制标题
过渡时期司法作为普通司法
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Adrian Vermeule
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Posner;Adrian Vermeule
过渡司法的理论家研究接替共产主义或专制政权的新民主国家所采用或回避的过渡措施，包括审判、清洗、清算、赔偿和真相委员会。理论家们倾向于反对过渡性措施，认为这些措施不自由，会分散人们对巩固新民主国家任务的注意力。在本文中，我们反对这种观点。过渡时期司法的批评者犯了错误，他们忽视了过渡措施在综合法律制度中很常见，这些制度本身经常遭受政治和经济冲击，导致或多或少程度的过渡。普通司法已经开发了一系列管理过渡的实用工具。巩固的民主国家利用审判、清洗和赔偿来实现有价值的前瞻性目标，而不允许不自由的镇压；新的民主国家也可以而且应该使用这些工具。由于过渡时期司法与普通司法是连续的，因此没有理由将过渡时期司法措施推定为可疑的，无论是在道德上还是在制度上。
Theorists of transitional justice study the transition measures used, or eschewed, by new democracies that succeed communist or authoritarian regimes - measures including trials, purges, lustration, reparations, and truth commissions. The theorists tend to oppose transitional measures, portraying them as illiberal and as a distraction from the task of consolidating new democracies. In this Article we argue against that view. The critics of transitional justice have gone wrong by overlooking that transitional measures are common in consolidated legal systems, which themselves constantly undergo political and economic shocks resulting in transitions of greater or lesser degree. Ordinary justice has developed a range of pragmatic tools for managing transitions. Consolidated democracies use trials, purges and reparations to accomplish valuable forward-looking goals without allowing illiberal repression; new democracies can and should use those tools also. Because transitional justice is continuous with ordinary justice, there is no reason to treat transitional-justice measures as presumptively suspect, on either moral or institutional grounds.