| dc.description.abstract |
Taking as its starting point a visible resurgence in the mid-to late 1990s of attempts to prosecute individual perpetrators for historical human rights crimes committed in Argentina, Chile, and elsewhere in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, this article argues that these attempts need to be distinguished from earlier state-level efforts to resolve outstanding justice dilemmas. These early efforts gave rise to the so-called transitional justice school of thought, which fore-grounded the role of state-led truth-telling exercises and amnesties in resolving outstanding justice questions in democratizing contexts. Practical and theoretical obstacles were identified and considered to render justice in the form of trials unlikely or unwise. This article addresses, at a certain distance both from particular transitions and from the historical and geopolitical context in which the transitional justice theories were elaborate, the question of how such justice constraints may be observed or expected to change over time. It proposes a new conceptual frame-work, that of “posttransitional justice” within which to analyze contemporary domestic justice outcomes. This article examines the particular institutional and actor configurations that may stimulate, facilitate or constrain the pursuit of criminal caes or findings of civil liability in cases of past human rights violations. |
