From Amnesties Toward Peace and Reconciliation: Cambodia, Chile, and Mozambique

The goal of this inquiry is to analyze whether or not there can be peace and reconciliation in cases where conflict and massive civil strife were followed by blanket amnesties which included crimes against humanity and gross violations of human rights.

The following case studies examine what took place in three different countries – Cambodia, Chile, and Mozambique – each of which experienced violent domestic conflict and massive human rights violations. The three countries analyzed in this inquiry represent not only a geographical and cultural diversity, but also a diversity in types of conflict and social strife, as well as a great complexity of local factors contributing to peacemaking, transition, and pathways toward reconciliation.

One of the conflicts here was a thoroughly internationalized and internalized clash entailing atrocities of genocidal proportions, another was an internal convulsion resulting from a power struggle between radically opposed ideological positions, and another was a post-colonial civil war turned mass-atrocity that left its country the poorest on earth. The Cambodian case focuses on amnesties issued in relation to a peace process designed to forge a stable, just, and peaceful state. The Chilean case focuses on an amnesty granted by a dictatorship in perhaps the most archetypal military coup in Latin America. The Mozambican case focuses on the gruesome human rights atrocities committed during its sixteen-year civil war, and the subsequent peace agreement and amnesty that ended the conflict.

Full Report available at: http://milanoschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2007-Spring-Huma...;

By:

Jesica Santos
Radosh Piletich
Monica Paz,
Bonnie Nezaj
Kellie McDaniel
Micheal Hill

Views: 171

Tags: accountability, amnesties, human, reconciliation, rights

Comment

You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

Killer Robots, Ethics, & Governance, with Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, has a simple solution for stopping the future proliferation of killer robots, or lethal autonomous weapons: "Ban them." What are the ethical and logistical risks of this technology? How would it change the nature of warfare? And with the U.S. and other nations currently developing killer robots, what is the state of governance?

As Biden Stalls, Is the "Restorationist" Narrative Losing Ground?

U.S. Global Engagement Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev notes that former Vice President Joe Biden is, in foreign policy terms, most associated with a "restorationist" approach. How does this differentiate from other candidates? What approach will resonate most with voters?

Democratic Candidates & Foreign Policy after Iowa, with Nikolas Gvosdev

With the (incomplete) results of the Iowa Caucus putting the spotlight on Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, what do we know about their foreign policy platforms? How do they differentiate themselves from Joe Biden? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev shares his thoughts and touches on voters' possible perception of Sanders as a "socialist" and how climate change could become an issue in this election.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

VIDEOS

SUPPORT US

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2020   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service


The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.