the Context of Global Conflicts: The Tension between Retributive Justice
and Restorative Justice, Friday, Jan. 26, 13 p.m. Facilitated
by Johan van der Vyver, I.T. Cohen Professor of International Law and
This session deals with
issues of conflict that have global implications; could you give some
background and explain the magnitude of the questions that will be raised?
van der Vyver:
In 1998, the U.N. Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries approved
the statute of an International Criminal Court designed to bring perpetrators
of international crimessuch as genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimesto justice. Political conflict and transition to new
democracies in South Africa and Eastern Europe continue to raise the question
as to the feasibility of either prosecutions or truth commissions.
Revelation of the truth is essential for people of the world to come
to terms with and respond to atrocities such as apartheid and the Holocaust.
The answer to the question of Truth and Prosecution or Truth
instead of Prosecu-tion is critical for dealing with current and
future political conflicts.
What can attendees expect
to gain from this session?
Participants will explore the tensions that exist between criminal prosecutions
(retributive justice) and alternative mechanisms that could be invoked
by nations having to come to terms with an unfortunate past and for building
a new future (restorative justice). It is hoped that an honest discussion
of these issues might also contribute to peoples of the United States
coming to better understand the latent group-related conflict situations
in our own country.
Who will be contributing
to this conversation?
Richard Goldstone, former prosecutor in the International Criminal Tribunals
of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and current judge in the Constitutional
Court of South Africa, will be presenting a discussion entitled, Truth
Commissions and Prosecutions: Is There a Conflict? Deborah Lipstadt,
Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies, and I will respond
to Judge Goldstones remarks.
Friday, Jan. 26,
13 p.m. Facilitated by Robert Paul, Candler Professor in the ILA
and dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
Could you explain the importance
of psychological reconciliation to the Emory community and
Paul: Psychological reconciliation, it might be argued, lies
at the root of and serves as the paradigm for all other forms of reconciliation.
Reconciliation by all people with themselves and with significant others
in their lives is a matter of concern and experience for all reconciliation
efforts. An inability to reconcile with oneself and the significant others
in ones life hinders the possibility of more collective reconciliation
efforts. Insights, such as those provided by professionals who practice
and study psychology and psychiatry, can help in this immediate, accessible
area of conflict and potential resolution.
How will attendees be impacted
by this conversation?
Participants will gain a greater understanding of the need for psychological
reconciliation with self and others, as well as some obstacles that hinder
it. They will also learn the methods by which those who work with psychological
conflict and trauma conceptualize these matters to promote personal and
relational healing. The presentation will focus on the necessity of individual
psychological reconciliation and the ways in which this increases the
potential for reconciliation on more collective levels.
Who will be participating
in the discussion?
I will start the session by presenting a paper titled, Make My Day:
Reconciliation Versus the Craving for Revenge. Professor of Psychology
Robyn Fivush will then present her paper, Reconciling Trauma and
Self. Our respondent will be Beth Seelig, associate professor of