1　「犠牲者中心の」移行期正義と加害者処罰　ラテンアメリカの経験から

抄録

The transitional justice field has grown significantly both in theory and practice for the past 30 years. Although the UN and human rights NGOs have endorsed retributive justice as an essential component of transitional justice, there is a growing criticism against it. Some of the critics view retributive justice as a “top-down” project imposed by the international community and advocate instead what they call “victim-centered” approaches. This article seeks to qualify this discourse by examining Latin American cases, where the partial success of prosecutions of human rights violators was largely the result of prolonged and tenacious struggles of survivors, family members of victims, and their support organizations. Thus, in Latin America, retributive justice was a “victim-centered,” “bottom-up,” and “locally-owned” project.

The first section distinguishes different types of criticism on the legal punishment of human rights violators, and the second section elucidates the factors which brought about these critiques. Among these factors is the fact that transitional justice “traveled” from Latin America to other parts of the world and expanded from mostly post-dictatorial contexts to include post-conflict societies (or even societies experiencing an ongoing conflict).

The third section reviews the Latin American transitional justice experiences and the fourth section highlights several features of the Latin American experience, most notably the strong desire of survivors and family members for retributive justice and their untiring struggles to achieve the truth and justice. This section also points out that S. P. Huntington’s dictum that “in new democratic regimes, justice comes quickly or it does not come at all” did not hold true in Latin America, largely because Huntington misread the political dynamics behind transitional justice.

The final section critically examines the “victim-centered” discourse beyond Latin American cases. The author cautions against the tendency to see “local people” as a homogeneous entity, emphasizing also that victims’ preferences vary greatly even in the same societies.