2　参加にともなう公的承認　南アフリカ真実和解委員会とカンボジア特別法廷の事例から

抄録

Both truth commissions and hybrid tribunals have been widely recognized as feasible and practical options in a post-conflict society for coping with past atrocities.

This essay explores the unique objectives shared by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), even though the frameworks of these two organizations contrast each other. This analysis can help us understand the particularities of the field of transitional justice beyond just reporting actual cases and evaluating them individually.

First, the essay provides a brief outline of the activities of both organizations and focuses on criticisms of these activities by a number of scholars. In doing so, this essay identifies the common core challenges that the TRC and ECCC face in implementing their objectives.

In the arguments provided in this essay, the circumstances under which the TRC and ECCC have to execute their mandates have been specifically identified: the political oppositions are still resisting regime change; the official budget to conduct programs is not sufficient; and many nationals are indifferent to the activities of these two organizations. This essay looks into the legitimacy and merit of the transitional justice programs. By doing so, it does not take a standpoint simply to vindicate the principle of reconciliation or the rule of law. Instead, it tries to imply that, in order to ensure the legitimacy of transitional justice programs among the affected nationals, the mechanism that allows nationals to engage in public activities and various other public settings that recognize victimhood is significantly important.