Sanning eller konsekvens? Amnesty Internationals hantering av balansgången mellan fredsbyggande och rättviseskipande vad gäller juridiska och icke-juridiska former av rättvisa
(2014) FKVK02 20141Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- This essay aims to investigate how Amnesty International handles the so called peace versus justice dilemma in post-conflict societies. This is done by studying a number of Amnesty publications published between 1996 and 2000, concerning various aspects of justice within the peacebuilding-process in Sierra Leone. More concretely, what is studied is whether Amnesty tends to prefer judicial (trials) or non-judicial (truth commissions) forms of justice, and what arguments are used. William Zartman's and Rama Mani's thoughts regarding peace and justice serve as the essay's main theoretical framework. The essay finds that in general, Amnesty International seems to prefer judicial forms of justice, mainly because of its deterrent effect.... (More)
- This essay aims to investigate how Amnesty International handles the so called peace versus justice dilemma in post-conflict societies. This is done by studying a number of Amnesty publications published between 1996 and 2000, concerning various aspects of justice within the peacebuilding-process in Sierra Leone. More concretely, what is studied is whether Amnesty tends to prefer judicial (trials) or non-judicial (truth commissions) forms of justice, and what arguments are used. William Zartman's and Rama Mani's thoughts regarding peace and justice serve as the essay's main theoretical framework. The essay finds that in general, Amnesty International seems to prefer judicial forms of justice, mainly because of its deterrent effect. However, there are indications that Amnesty International also considers judicial justice as the best way to establish truth about abuse, violence, victim and offender. When having established these truths, Amnesty may be open to more pragmatic forms of justice. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4588424
- author
- Gustafsson, Jakob LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- FKVK02 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- peacebuilding, transitional justice, dilemma, Amnesty International, trial, truth commission, peace versus justice
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4588424
- date added to LUP
- 2014-09-17 13:26:40
- date last changed
- 2014-09-17 13:26:40
@misc{4588424, abstract = {{This essay aims to investigate how Amnesty International handles the so called peace versus justice dilemma in post-conflict societies. This is done by studying a number of Amnesty publications published between 1996 and 2000, concerning various aspects of justice within the peacebuilding-process in Sierra Leone. More concretely, what is studied is whether Amnesty tends to prefer judicial (trials) or non-judicial (truth commissions) forms of justice, and what arguments are used. William Zartman's and Rama Mani's thoughts regarding peace and justice serve as the essay's main theoretical framework. The essay finds that in general, Amnesty International seems to prefer judicial forms of justice, mainly because of its deterrent effect. However, there are indications that Amnesty International also considers judicial justice as the best way to establish truth about abuse, violence, victim and offender. When having established these truths, Amnesty may be open to more pragmatic forms of justice.}}, author = {{Gustafsson, Jakob}}, language = {{swe}}, note = {{Student Paper}}, title = {{Sanning eller konsekvens? Amnesty Internationals hantering av balansgången mellan fredsbyggande och rättviseskipande vad gäller juridiska och icke-juridiska former av rättvisa}}, year = {{2014}}, }