Reparations in Southern Africa (original) (raw)
Related papers
Between transitional justice and politics: Reparations in South Africa
South African Journal of International Affairs, 2018
Reparations are a major component of transitional justice in the aftermath of widespread abuse. However, the implementation of reparations programmes often follows the logic of transitional politics, where short-term political interests trump victims' rights. Using the South African case as a cautionary tale, this article shows that reparations are susceptible to political instrumentalisation and evaluates the role of international redress norms in safeguarding victims' rights. Civil society groups have used the right to reparations as a basis for political contestation of inadequate reparations programmes and focused primarily on the broadening of redress norms. However, the existing international legislation fails to protect victims' rights to reparations from political manoeuvring. In conclusion, the article highlights the need for international redress norms to be consolidated and made more concrete in order to more effectively circumscribe the scope states have to avoid meeting their reparations obligations.
Reparative Development: re-conceptualising reparations in transitional justice processes
Conflict, Security & Development, 2017
Reparations are increasingly seen as potential avenues to address the socioeconomic structural injustices that have affected victims during conflict or authoritarian rule. Scholars, however, have identified serious limitations in these policies, emanating from faulty design, political reluctance, financial limitations, and uneven implementation. This article proposes a reconceptualisation of reparation policies by embedding them in a framework of reparative development. A theory of reparative development is outlined by discussing how principles emanating from key rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights can be articulated to provide a conceptual link between transitional justice and development. This article argues that restitution should consider not only past damages but also lost life opportunities. Reparations should be both individual- and community-based, taking into account the supplemental policy actions required to make them both effective and sensitive to existing human insecurities. Finally, they need to involve local and grassroots organisations in their implementation.
Victim Reparations in Transitional JusticeWhat is at Stake and Why
Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 2008
Based on the growing international and academic interest on victim reparations as a mechanism of transitional justice, and the abundant literature that has emerged in the past few years, this article takes a step back to ask what is actually at stake with victim reparations and why. Through a discussion of the core issues and choices present in developing victim reparations initiatives, the elements of an analytical framework for the study of specific reparation programs emerge. The framework highlights the social and contested character of reparation programs, arguing that such programs be seen in relationship to the political projects they support.
The Reparations Game: An Analytical Framework of Reparations in Transitional Justice
Papel Politico, 2008
The intention of this article is to stress the topic of reparations in processes of transitional justice from the perspective of political science. In a specific way, we intend to establish an analytical framework of reparations in the context of transitional justice in three levels: justice, administrative dimension and political dimension. Using the results of the review of different international cases and the tools of game theory, we present the "reparations game" from a strategic perspective that copes with context and actors. Two strategies are outlined in order that the victims could overcome the constraints established by the previous political game that arises among government and wrongdoers. Finally we outline some conclusions and recommendations.
American Journal of International Law, 2008
Background Countries emerging from long periods of authoritarian rule must often confront a legacy of gross human rights abuses perpetrated over many years. During the past two decades, these age-old issues have been termed "problems of transitional justice", both by academics and policy makers around the world. Given the many experiences and the many issues involved in periods of political transitions and after violent conflicts, it is striking that no book series has taken these issues as their focal point. The new Series on Transitional Justice, published by Intersentia Publishers in Antwerp, Belgium, aims to fill this gap in international research and practice. Mission The Series on Transitional Justice offers a platform for high-quality research within the rapidly growing field of transitional justice. The research will, of necessity, be inter-disciplinary in nature, drawing from disciplines such as law, political science, history, sociology, criminology, anthropology and psychology, as well as from various specialised fields of study such as human rights, victimology and peace studies. Furthermore, the research will be international in outlook, drawing on the knowledge and experience of academics and other specialists in many different regions of the world. The series is aimed at a variety of audiences, including senior and junior academic teachers, researchers and students, national and international organisations, policy-makers and practitioners, non-governmental organisations and the media, working in the fields of crime and justice, human rights, humanitarian law and human security, conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
Ethnicity & Health, 2000
Brandon Hamber is an independent consultant. Thanks to Sue Williams, Cathy Gormly and Damaris Hess for their editorial assistance. Let me begin by noting that reparation is not just about money, it is not even mostly about money; in fact, money is not even one percent of what reparation is about. Reparation is mostly about making repairs; self-made repairs, on ourselves-mental repairs, psychological repairs, cultural repairs, organisational repairs, social repairs, institutional repairs, technological repairs, economic repairs, political repairs, educational repairs, repairs of every type … 1 Although reparations for a survivor of violence or the family of victim may well be psychologically necessary, on an individual level, they are not sufficient because genuine resolution depends on how the individual personally works through the traumas of the past. Reparations, both material and the so-called symbolic, are useful markers in this process, but the lasting legacy of gross violations human rights does not simply vanish with time or when reparations are granted. Government strategies such as truth commissions can help to open the door for the possibility of the individual and the country to begin the process of working through a violent and conflicted history. Socioeconomic development can help ease this process considerably-but it too is limited and intrinsically insufficient for addressing the plethora of personal injustice and psychological injury experienced after substantial loss. This paper explores the interplay between these factors, and the contradictory and inherent difficulties of trying to make amends for past wrongs in post-apartheid South Africa. The competing and often diverging psychological needs of the individual and the society with regards to making reparations for gross violations of human rights are discussed. The paper begins by briefly outlining the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission's mandate and policy recommendations with regards to reparations for survivors and families of victims of human rights abuses. Thereafter, some of the psychological benefits and double-binds of making reparations are outlined. Four suggestions are then made with regard to how the process of making reparations for essentially irreparable loss can be eased. Reparations and Truth and Reconciliation Commission The least well-publicised of the three Truth and Reconciliation Commission Committees is the Reparations and Rehabilitations Committee (R+R Committee). Unlike the Amnesty Committee and the Human Rights Violations Committee it did not hold public hearings for either perpetrators or victims. 2 Based on the findings of the other two Committees, this Committee was mandated to design a policy of how best to assist those found to be victims, i.e. the direct survivors, family members and/or dependents of someone who has suffered a politically motivated gross violation of human rights associated with a killing, abduction, torture or severe ill-treatment. The R+R Committee was obligated to make recommendations to "reparate" these victims for the damages they had undergone in the conflicts of the past. To this end, and according to the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (hereafter the TRC Act), 3 the TRC had to make recommendations to the President with regard to: The policy which should be followed or measures which should be taken with regard to the granting of reparation to victims or the taking of other measures aimed at rehabilitating and restoring the human and civil dignity of victims. 4 The R+R Committee made such recommendations in the final report of the TRC that was handed over to President Mandela on 29 October 1998. According to the TRC Act the policy could recommend any reparation measures in the form of compensation, ex gratia payment, restitution, rehabilitation or recognition. The TRC final report makes a number of suggestions that utilised most of these measures. The President and Parliament has to decide how, or whether, the policy will be implemented.
This paper examines the articulation of Ubuntu as a traditional African form of justice and how it was deployed to legitimize the Transition and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), as a restorative transitional justice model within and beyond post-apartheid South Africa. Transitional justice here refers to judicial and non-judicial measures implemented to redress legacies of human rights abuses in the aftermath of conflict and repression. It seeks recognition and justice for victims while promoting peace and reconciliation. In the final analysis, it is observed that the deployment of ubuntu in both the context of the TRC and socioeconomic rights jurisprudence represents a vernacularisation process that has served to legitimize universal human rights in South Africa. It also marks a distinctive South African and African normative contribution to the discourse on human dignity and the global fulfilment of universal human rights.
Restorative Justice and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process
2013
It has frequently been argued that the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was committed to restorative justice (RJ), and that RJ has deep historical roots in African indigenous cultures by virtue of its congruence both with ubuntu and with African indigenous justice systems (AIJS). In this article, I look into the question of what RJ is. I also present the finding that the term ‘restorative justice’ appears only in transcripts of three public TRC hearings, and the hypothesis that the TRC first really began to take notice of the term ‘restorative justice’ after April 1997, when the South African Law Commission published an Issue Paper dealing with RJ. Furthermore, I show that neither the connection between RJ and ubuntu nor the connection between RJ and AIJS is as straightforward and unproblematic as often assumed.