What is the appropriate political response to mass atrocity? In
Hijacked Justice, Jelena Subotic traces the design, implementation,
and political outcomes of institutions established to deal with the
legacies of violence in the aftermath of the Yugoslav wars. She
finds that international efforts to establish accountability for
war crimes in the former Yugoslavia have been used to pursue very
different local political goals.
Responding to international pressures, Serbia, Croatia, and
Bosnia have implemented various mechanisms of "transitional
justice" the systematic addressing of past crimes after conflicts
end. Transitional justice in the three countries, however, was
guided by ulterior political motives: to get rid of domestic
political opponents, to obtain international financial aid, or to
gain admission to the European Union. Subotic argues that when
transitional justice becomes "hijacked" for such local political
strategies, it fosters domestic backlash, deepens political
instability, and even creates alternative, politicized versions of
history.
That war crimes trials (such as those in The Hague) and truth
commissions (as in South Africa) are necessary and desirable has
become a staple belief among those concerned with reconstructing
societies after conflict. States are now expected to deal with
their violent legacies in an institutional setting rather than
through blanket amnesty or victor's justice. This new expectation,
however, has produced paradoxical results. In order to avoid the
pitfalls of hijacked justice, Subotic argues, the international
community should focus on broader and deeper social transformation
of postconflict societies, instead on emphasizing only arrests of
war crimes suspects."
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!