Unequal victims - Recognition in the aftermath of mass violence. Germany, Rwanda and Cambodia in Comparison

尽管德国、卢旺达和柬埔寨这三个种族灭绝暴力的个案可能是历时性的和不同的，但它们的战后发展有一个核心的相似之处：受到迫害的人并不自动被视为受害者。相反，在每一种情况下，受害者身份过去和现在都被许多参与者归咎于或否认国际和社会间的群体。这种归属伴随着对处于过渡阶段的受害者群体的认识，这是一个话语的、动态的事件，代表了这个项目的中心主题。尤其应该调查的是，在有意的、话语的情况下，国际和社会间两级的参与者如何以及在什么条件下对受害者身份的归属和否认产生影响。可以确定哪些触发因素、动力因素、阻燃因素甚至阻碍因素？是什么机制导致了对受害者群体的识别？最后：在过渡时期司法程序中，受害者群体本身实际上有权获得何种解释力量、行动权力和角色？以德国、卢旺达和柬埔寨为例，系统地选择了对受到强烈法律影响的康复进程进行历时性的国际比较。这三个例子，每一个都代表了20世纪和21世纪在处理种族灭绝罪行及其受害者方面的正当化过程的发展阶段，引发了本项目的主要假设，即自1945年以来，司法归属和相关的全球受害者认知在承认问题上发挥着日益主导的作用，尽管不是完全的霸权作用。与此相关的是，我们必须提出这样一个问题，即法律规范和社会对受害者身份的承认、受害者-加害者二分法、对过去的解释和叙述如何相互作用。计划中的项目涉及各个学科和研究领域的研究进展，以便回答手头的问题，并就大规模种族灭绝暴力事件后受害者识别的机制和动态作出断言。通过有针对性地侧重于可比较的观点，通过对选定的受害者群体进行深入分析，以及通过对相关案例进行明确的问卷调查，可以使意图的复杂性得到管理。最后，该项目声称要扩大迄今为止主要是法学和社会主义倾向的受害者研究，包括一个明确的历史科学视角，并为其提供历史基础，从而产生新的发现。

Germany, Rwanda and Cambodia, as diachronic and different as these three individual cases of genocidal violence may be, their post-war development bears one central similarity: The people who were persecuted were not automatically regarded as victims. Rather, victimhood in each situational context was and is ascribed or denied to groups on both an international and inter-societal level by a large number of players. This ascription is accompanied by the recognition of groups of victims in transition phases as a discursive, dynamic event which represents the central subject of this project. In particular, it should be investigated as to how and under what conditions the ascription and denial of victimhood, in an intentional, discursive context, is effected by players on both the international and inter-societal levels. Which triggering, dynamising, retardant or even obstructing factors can be determined? What mechanisms lead to the recognition of groups of victims? And finally: Which interpretative force, power to act and role are victim groups themselves actually entitled to in terms of their recognition within transitional justice processes? A diachronic, international comparison of the strongly juristically influenced rehabilitation processes is methodically selected in the case of Germany, Rwanda and Cambodia. These three examples, each of which represents developmental phases of a process of juridification in the 20th and 21st centuries in dealing with genocidal crimes and their victims, provoke the leading hypothesis for this project, that since 1945, judicial attribution and the related global perception of victimhood in the question of recognition, plays an increasingly dominant though not completely hegemonial role. Linked to this, we must ask the question as to how legal-normative and societal recognition of victimhood, victim-perpetrator dichotomies, interpretation of the past and narrative interact with one another. The planned project takes up research developments from various disciplines and research contexts in order to answer the questions at hand and to make assertions regarding the mechanisms and dynamics of victim recognition after genocidal mass violence. The resultant complexity of the intention can be made manageable through targeted focussing on the comparable perspectives, through in-depth analyses of selected groups of victims and through defined questionnaires for the relevant case examples. Finally, the project claims to expand victim research, which up till now has been predominantly jurisprudentially and socialistically inclined, to include a decidedly historically scientific perspective and to give it historical grounding that will lead to new findings.