National Reconciliation and the Disruptive Potential of the Legacy of Human-Rights Violations

1999 ◽  
pp. 109-135
Author(s):  
LUIS RONIGER ◽  
MARIO SZNAJDER
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
National Reconciliation

“We’re All Victims”

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 39-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Salvi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
The Military ◽  
National Reconciliation

While the call for “national reconciliation” as a way to avoid criminal trials for human rights violations has been a constant refrain in the discourse of the armed forces since the return to democracy in Argentina in 1983, it has been made from different positions and in response to diverse conjunctures. Changes in the rhetoric of national reconciliation have been employed as a political and extrajudicial strategy by both the military and civilians for 30 years. The proposal of national reconciliation has oscillated between the need to forget the long-term effects of an “antisubversive war” and a sort of “duty to remember” in which all Argentines are brothers in the evocation of collective pain. Aunque el llamado a la “reconciliación nacional” como una manera para evitar los juicios penales por violaciones a los derechos humanos ha sido un estribillo constante en el discurso de las fuerzas armadas desde el regreso de la democracia en la Argentina en 1983, éste se ha hecho desde diferentes posiciones y como respuesta a coyunturas diferentes. Los cambios en la retórica de la reconciliación nacional han sido usados como una estrategia política y extrajudicial tanto por los militares como por los civiles desde hace 30 años. La propuesta de reconciliación nacional ha oscilado entre la necesidad de olvidar los efectos a largo plazo de la “guerra antisubversiva” y una especie de “deber de memoria” en el que todos los argentinos están hermanados en la evocación de un dolor colectivo.

Social representations of human rights violations: Further evidence

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Clémence ◽  
Thierry Devos ◽  
Willem Doise
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Young People ◽  
Social Representations ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Tolerance ◽  
Individual Actions

Social representations of human rights violations were investigated in a questionnaire study conducted in five countries (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Romania, and Switzerland) (N = 1239 young people). We were able to show that respondents organize their understanding of human rights violations in similar ways across nations. At the same time, systematic variations characterized opinions about human rights violations, and the structure of these variations was similar across national contexts. Differences in definitions of human rights violations were identified by a cluster analysis. A broader definition was related to critical attitudes toward governmental and institutional abuses of power, whereas a more restricted definition was rooted in a fatalistic conception of social reality, approval of social regulations, and greater tolerance for institutional infringements of privacy. An atypical definition was anchored either in a strong rejection of social regulations or in a strong condemnation of immoral individual actions linked with a high tolerance for governmental interference. These findings support the idea that contrasting definitions of human rights coexist and that these definitions are underpinned by a set of beliefs regarding the relationships between individuals and institutions.

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oil And Gas Companies ◽  
Political Question ◽  
The U.S

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document