Justicia después de la guerra
When hostilities reach a conclusion —whether or not they were part of a formal armed conflict—, the parties must be held accountable for their actions. This belief is almost universally held, regardless of one’s moral or ethical convictions. However, the details of this responsibility...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6798814 |
| Source: | DIXI, ISSN 0124-7255, Nº. 24, 2016 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| Summary: |
When hostilities reach a conclusion —whether or not they were part of a formal
armed conflict—, the parties must be held accountable for their actions. This
belief is almost universally held, regardless of one’s moral or ethical convictions.
However, the details of this responsibility are highly controversial and disputed.
In the second section of this short article, a legal basis for post-war justice is pro-
vided that appeals to the anti-impunity norm. It is then concluded that criminal
proceedings uphold the anti-impunity norm better than non-criminal mecha-
nisms. In light of this conclusion, the third section poses the following questions:
How do we achieve post-war justice? Who should be brought to trial: leaders or
soldiers? Should they be tried in national or international courts? What should
they be charged with: national or international crimes? What procedures should
be followed in the trials and how? Finally, why should they be punished? |
|---|