tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6279241844677447368.post1075257469463615977..comments2024-01-23T18:04:35.144+01:00Comments on Spreading The Jam (moved to www.dovjacobs.com): Khaddafi Arrest Warrant: Some Thoughts on Peace Vs Justice (non)-debateDov Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14088064995374954241noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6279241844677447368.post-40402655629988588862011-06-03T23:25:07.008+02:002011-06-03T23:25:07.008+02:00I would like to start by thanking you for placing ...I would like to start by thanking you for placing this debate in precisely the theoretical landscape where it belongs and subsequently questioning that landscape itself. It is *exactly* the right way, in my opinion, of assessing the peace-justice debate.<br /><br />No one will win the "peace versus justice" debate, not because arguments on either side aren't compelling (they often are based on well-reasoned logic) but the debate isn't there to be won in any real sense. Views will always depend on context and sometimes even different moments in the same context. As you clearly note, it may also depend on moral/ethical inclinations as much as empirical facts. Further complicating the debate is the plethora of contradictory evidence, not only between cases but within them. Lastly, by-and-large, the "peace justice debate" has managed to almost entirely neglect conflict and peace studies, especially conflict resolution streams. The result is little understanding of what conceptions of peace exist, how these different conceptions affect attitudes of various actors, and, importantly, how the inclusion of justice and accountability actually affects negotiators, not only in theory, but at the negotiating table. As I have mentioned before, my PhD work tries to tackle precisely these issues. <br /><br />I'll end with one dissenting argument. For a long time I would have agreed with you that there is a division between those of deontological, moral imperative persuasion and those who could be said to be utilitarian or consequentialist. I think one of the interesting developments in debates on international criminal justice, however, is that all sides now argue from a largely consequentialist perspective. While I disagree with her on a range of issues, Leslie Vinjamuri recently argued this point convincingly. Proponents now typically extol the consequences of ICJ: that prosecutions will act as a deterrent, can marginalize peace spoilers, will return dignity to victims, and will turn retributive violence into retributive justice. You rarely hear anyone these days only saying it matters because of its inherent moral worth. <br /><br />Once again, thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking words. <br /><br />MarkMark Kerstenhttp://www.justiceinconflict.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6279241844677447368.post-43642615596553704122011-05-31T18:26:52.329+02:002011-05-31T18:26:52.329+02:00Dov,
You can easily defend the peace over justice...Dov,<br /><br />You can easily defend the peace over justice position from a deontological perspective (i can give you quite a host of avenues to do exactly that) - or, as a matter of fact, the justice one from a utilitarian standpoint (more simply put, by reference to deterence, even if it of course never works)... As usual, the methodologies and moral theories used do not necessarily prejudice the legal theoretical outcomes...<br /><br />Concerning the reconciliation of both approaches: i totally agree; cela tient de la quadrature du cercle and, as for any other circle, it is reluctant to be squared ;)<br /><br />On the historical perspective: ethnic cleansing used to be called state building - not particularly PC, and hence rarely mentioned in these times of ultra-PCness, but still true...<br /><br />Great post as always! M-la-maudite-Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com