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

千方百计：1993年波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那冲突期间，一位穆斯林居民目睹了塞族人对巴尼亚卢卡清真寺和墓地的破坏，他哀叹道：“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）破坏文化遗产正逐渐被视为种族暴力和种族灭绝的基本原则。由于文化遗产充满了集体归属的象征意义，它很容易受到试图抹去“他者”可见证据的反对者的攻击。通过这种暴力，社会边界被重新组织，改变了集体身份。然而，文化破坏对集体认同形成的重大影响在过渡时期司法中被忽视，在没有系统编纂或分析的研究中以轶事为特色，过渡时期司法的年轻领域-处理战争罪和侵犯人权行为的机制（Teital 2000）-已经陷入僵局。当代的批评比比皆是，强调了脱离背景的“一刀切”和“自上而下”的解决方案（Nagy 2008），忽视了性别暴力模式（Tabak 2011），以及可能造成进一步伤害的颠覆（Loyle和Davenport 2016）。我认为，过渡时期司法的缺点是基于未能理解社区身份是如何改变冲突动态本身，忽视了暴力和战时的经验，塑造社区的身份和冲突后的需求的过程。我的研究解决了这一学术和政策差距。我们首先必须了解暴力如何改变当地社区，然后才能建立直接满足其需要的机制。我的研究将最终有助于新兴的奖学金，以社区为基础，基层方法重新概念化过渡时期司法（Giblin 2014; Moffett et al. 2019），提供新的发现，使用文化破坏方法的暴力遗产。我的研究结果将最终加强当地知情的方法来重新思考过渡时期的正义，但本研究的范围是如何战时文化破坏改变社会和集体identity.I将采用定性比较分析两个案件之间的墓地破坏在种族冲突-检查的影响和遗产，这种暴力对集体认同的形成从关系的角度深入探讨。比较提供了比单个案例更强的分析基线，在不削弱重点分析的情况下提供假设生成（Hall 2003）。我将使用混合方法的话语分析，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的，因此采用混合方法将提供对文化破坏的未探索维度的洞察。我的案例是1993年在波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那Divic和1998年开始在阿塞拜疆Nakhichevan破坏墓地的事件，在教科文组织要求暂时停止之后，于2005年达到高潮。墓地破坏--在民族主义暴力中很常见--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：日常生活的破坏，历史的破坏，集体的破坏，以及深刻的个人的破坏。然而，与其他遗产项目不同，墓地不能按传统方式“重建”。鉴于重建遗产的传统目标是使其恢复到战前的“真实”状态（Moffett et al 2019：4），墓地破坏要求我们创新地思考重建本身的潜在意图。

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.