規範的多元性と移行期正義

―ローカルな「和解」規範・制度のトランスナショナルな伝播メカニズム―

抄録

Transitional justice frameworks have been developed through the various attempts of societies emerging from conflicts. In this process, they have been stretched to encompass different kinds of norms, such as the rule of law and human rights, from related areas of post-conflict peace-building efforts. This “norm complexity,” however, has created tension between an existing norm and a new norm on its introduction when there is no congruence between them.
In this article, I analyze how this friction caused by competing norms and practices has been avoided. In particular, I examine the way the local “reconciliation” processes have been incorporated into the existing transitional mechanism despite the fact that local justice norms often fail to comply with international norms such as human rights and international accountability norms.
Firstly, I focus on the fact that the often vague and abstract concept “reconciliation” has different meanings and practices depending on the context and cultural background of its application. This phenomenon, which I call “normative pluralism”, is brought about by “translation.” This process of translation gives new relevance to pre-existing concepts in order to avoid contestation. These translation efforts can be explained as norm localization or “vernacularization” processes which result in the wide variety of meanings and practices.
Secondly, I explore who actually “translate” the meanings and practices and what elements are diffused and how. Unlike their passive role described in preexisting literature, I find a positive and subjective role played by local agents to build congruence between transnational norms and local ideas and practices. However, I argue that transnational agents serve as translators between transnational and local arenas. In fact, interactive work by both local and transnational agents could create a balanced modification of both norms in order to avoid arbitrary translation by the dominant local actors. In order to explain the transnational diffusion mechanisms of localized norms and practices, I employ the model of social movement theory to illustrate what is diffused and what is not. I argue that versatile elements, which comply with international norms and principles, can be diffused and result in further localization at the local level.
I apply this framework first of all to argue that in post-apartheid South Africa “reconciliation” was localized though the work of the TRC. I also discuss the way “reconciliation” was applied by the following post-conflict societies; East Timor, Sierra Leone and Rwanda.I conclude that versatile elements which are diffused by the transnational agents are only norms and practices in adherence with international standards and principles. As is clear in the case of Rwanda, however, these localization processes are prone to be manipulated by local actors without the involvement of transnational agents.