#Transitional Justice

[omegaphilosophia]

Theories of The Philosophy of Peace

The philosophy of peace is a complex field that explores the nature of peace, its principles, and the conditions required to achieve it. Here are some prominent theories and perspectives within the philosophy of peace:

Pacifism: Pacifism is a foundational theory of peace, emphasizing non-violence and the rejection of war as a means of resolving conflicts. It includes various subcategories, such as absolute pacifism (opposition to all forms of violence) and conditional pacifism (accepting non-violent resistance but opposing armed conflict).

Just War Theory: This theory, rooted in ethical philosophy, provides a framework for determining when wars can be morally justifiable. It sets criteria for the initiation and conduct of wars and emphasizes proportionality and the protection of non-combatants.

Positive Peace: Positive peace goes beyond the absence of war and focuses on the presence of conditions that contribute to a just and sustainable peace. It considers socio-economic equity, social justice, human rights, and environmental sustainability as essential components of lasting peace.

Conflict Resolution Theories: These theories aim to resolve conflicts through non-violent means. They include negotiation, mediation, diplomacy, and alternative dispute resolution methods. The works of scholars like Johan Galtung and his "positive and negative peace" concept contribute to this field.

Cosmopolitanism: Cosmopolitanism promotes a global perspective that transcends national boundaries. It suggests that a sense of shared humanity can lead to a more peaceful world by emphasizing global citizenship and cooperation among nations.

Feminist Peace Theory: Feminist perspectives on peace challenge traditional notions of masculinity and warfare. They argue for the inclusion of women's voices in peace processes and highlight the links between gender equality, security, and peace.

Transitional Justice: This theory focuses on addressing the legacies of conflict and human rights abuses in post-conflict societies. It explores mechanisms for accountability, truth-telling, reconciliation, and reparations to establish a foundation for lasting peace.

Human Rights-Based Approaches: These approaches assert that peace and human rights are intertwined. They emphasize the protection of individual rights as a prerequisite for achieving and maintaining peace.

Gandhian Philosophy: Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's principles of non-violence and civil disobedience, this philosophy advocates for peaceful resistance as a means to challenge injustice and oppressive regimes.

Global Governance: Global governance theories explore the role of international institutions, such as the United Nations, in promoting peace and stability at the global level. They propose mechanisms for collective decision-making and conflict resolution.

Conflict Transformation: This approach views conflicts as opportunities for positive change and transformation. It seeks to address the underlying causes of conflicts and create conditions for lasting peace by changing the dynamics between parties involved.

Ethical and Religious Perspectives: Many ethical and religious traditions offer insights into the philosophy of peace. These perspectives often emphasize values such as compassion, forgiveness, and the importance of community in achieving peace.

These are just a few of the theories and perspectives within the philosophy of peace. Each theory contributes to a deeper understanding of the nature of peace, the conditions necessary for its realization, and the ethical considerations involved in striving for a more peaceful world.

[howdoesone]

How does one assess the impact of transitional justice mechanisms in post-genocide societies?

Transitional justice mechanisms play a crucial role in post-genocide societies by addressing past atrocities, promoting accountability, and fostering reconciliation. Assessing the impact of these mechanisms is essential to understand their effectiveness in healing divided communities and preventing future conflicts. This article explores how one can assess the impact of transitional justice…

[emancip8projectonline]

Dealing with the Past: Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in Eastern Europe

by Emancip8 Project

Addressing the legacies of conflict and human rights violations remain a significant challenge for many Eastern European countries. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) have been established in various global contexts to facilitate healing and promote justice, offering a valuable model for conflict-affected nations. This article will examine the potential role of TRCs in Eastern Europe, highlighting the importance of addressing the past to foster sustainable peace, and the challenges and opportunities associated with this process.

TRCs operate under the premise that revealing the truth about past human rights abuses is essential for reconciliation and social repair (Hayner, 2011). These commissions often conduct public hearings, collect testimonies, and produce comprehensive reports that document historical injustices. They may also recommend reparations, institutional reforms, and other measures to prevent the recurrence of violence (Bloomfield et al., 2003).

Eastern Europe has a complex history of armed conflicts, ethnic tensions, and human rights violations. The establishment of TRCs in the region could provide a crucial platform for addressing these issues, facilitating dialogue, and promoting understanding between divided communities (Minow, 1998). For example, the TRC in South Africa has been widely regarded as a successful model, contributing to a peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy (Gibson, 2004).

However, the implementation of TRCs in Eastern Europe is not without challenges. Establishing a TRC requires political will and commitment from all stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and affected communities (Lederach, 1997). The process must be sensitive to local cultural and historical contexts and should prioritize the needs and expectations of victims and survivors (Laplante & Theidon, 2007).

The role of international actors and the broader international community in supporting TRCs in Eastern Europe is also crucial. External assistance can provide necessary resources, technical expertise, and political support, but must be balanced with local ownership and agency (Brahm, 2007). Collaboration between local and international stakeholders can enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of TRCs, ensuring that they are tailored to the specific needs and contexts of Eastern European countries.

In conclusion, TRCs hold significant potential as a tool for addressing the past, promoting reconciliation, and fostering sustainable peace in Eastern Europe. While challenges remain, the successful implementation of TRCs in the region will depend on strong local ownership, international support, and a commitment to truth, justice, and healing.

References:

Bloomfield, D., Barnes, T., & Huyse, L. (Eds.). (2003). Reconciliation after violent conflict: A handbook. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.

Brahm, E. (2007). Uncovering the truth: Examining truth commission success and impact. International Studies Perspectives, 8(1), 16–35.

Gibson, J. L. (2004). Overcoming apartheid: Can truth reconcile a divided nation? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601(1), 201–215.

Hayner, P. B. (2011). Unspeakable truths: Transitional justice and the challenge of truth commissions. Routledge.

Laplante, L. J., & Theidon, K. S. (2007). Truth with Consequences: Justice and reparations in post-truth commission Peru. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(1), 228–250.

Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Minow, M. (1998). Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing history after genocide and mass violence.

Read more at Emancip8 Project.

[themadcapmathematician]

The thing about public transportation is that it often operates at a loss or at least pretty thin profit margins no matter how much the ticket prices get raised. In a lot of places, service is bad, operator pays get cut while they're overworked, wait times are ridiculous, no one can get places in a timely manner most places, if you can get places at all, and a profit still isn't being turned

But the money and human suffering and indignity that public transport saves can't be quantified by profits from ticket sales. "Can people get places in your city easily to work, to school, for leisure, for socializing? How much money do you save when your workers get to their jobs on time? When people can access healthcare and government buildings easily? How much pain and suffering and human life do you save when people know they'll never be stranded in your city or town no matter the time, day, or how much pocket change they have?" these aren't questions answered by "it makes profit" and the necessity of infrastructure can't be measured by profit, you have to think long term, you have to look at benefits in more abstract ways, and all Business Models are deeply bad at that kind of planning. It isn't a mystery why a machine that exists to make profit right now isn't a machine that's good at making a robust system that focuses on long term benefits, fiscal or ethical. the fact that people are still struggling futilely to turn something with benefits that abstract and that vital into a dispenser of narrow, short-term return is fucking infuriating

Public transportation should be free and well-funded because a place where no one can get anywhere is a place no one can exist in public, and that's bad for the economy but it's also bad for human fucking dignity

[umbrvx]

a villain’s journey

[crowtoed]

If you aren't already: Mask in Public

It's an act of resistance. It's a gesture that says: I not only care about my health, but the health of others. Especially people with immune deficiencies, people with disabilities, children, the elderly, the sick, parents, teachers... the list goes on. You should absolutely engage in more community involvement, and it's an excellent place to start. Also the odds are Trump will install more anti-science people in positions in public health. There'll be more mask bans. Keep masking and re-normalize it. It'll piss 'em off.

[qpjianghu]

"All these years, he’s been alone. You are the only friend I’ve seen him with."

Li Lianhua & Fang Duobing | Mysterious Lotus Casebook (2023)

[justalittlesolarpunk]

Hey, can you reblog if you are or plan to be carfree, and if you want to or can’t let me know in the comments? Wanna see something (how many of us there are haha)

[queerism1969]

[illegal-prime]

Normalize updating laws and regulations that are no longer fit for purpose.

Normalize working with powerful enemies to find a solution where everybody wins.

Normalize mutual compromise.

Normalize collaboration over opposition.

Normalize civil discourse on divisive issues.

Normalize good faith and the principle of charity.

Normalize discussion of specific social, political, and economic issues.

Normalize advocacy for specific and implementable policy reforms to to tackle said issues.

Normalize imperfect solutions.

Normalize civic engagement.

Normalize public sector action.

Normalize incremental success.

Normalize improving society instead of destroying and rebuilding it from the ground up.

NORMALIZE PROGRESS!!!

[2p42m]

|| mock-ups 📝

[couldtransitionsaveher]

BRUCE WAYNE / BATMAN from JUSTICE LEAGUE UNLIMITED (2003)

JUSTIFICATION:

"idk. when i was starting my first watch-through, i kept accidentally misgendering her, but when i thought about it, i realized that she just comes off as trans to me. i feel like she would be so much more comfortable if she had the opportunity to figure herself out." - Anonymous

Reminder: Submissions are always open! Submit here!

Did you make your daily click today?

[narumitsu-shipper]

my transitioning goals

[quietwingsinthesky]

was writing this down for an ask but realized i was quickly getting off topic for that ask lmao. let’s talk about Dean’s handprint, the wild misinterpretations of it, and how those have affected how people read Anna covering it during her sex scene with Dean.

We have to establish the obvious first: the number one way the handprint is misinterpreted is to establish a romantic connection between Dean and Castiel from their very first meeting. Because of how popular the ship is, we’re now left with the unfortunate aftermath of people knowing the ship first and the show second, and therefore being more inclined to interpret the show through the lens of the ship. Needless to say, while looking at season 4 through that lens for hints of destiel is fun, it doesn’t lead to a thematically cohesive reading. The handprint is the best way we can demonstrate this. If we take the handprint to indicate that Castiel has been romantically interested in Dean since minute one, or even that he sees Dean as a person rather than an instrument of Heaven’s will at first (put a pin in that), then the rest of his character arc for the season is incoherent and meaningless. To assert that this is what the handprint is about takes the conclusion Castiel needs the entirety of season 4 to reach and transplants it onto him at the very beginning in order to make it easier to find evidence for the ship.

There’s a lot of media out there where interpreting it through the lens of a ship, even one unintended by the author, can enhance the original text. (Lest we all forget our Winter Soldier roots.) Supernatural does not have that relationship to interpreting it to be about destiel. A season 4 where the handprint means Castiel is in love with Dean is a weaker story and does a huge disservice to Castiel’s actual character arc.

So, now that we’ve established what the handprint isn’t, can we talk about what it is? Yes. It’s pretty simple, actually.

Think of it this way: To Heaven, Dean is livestock, and the handprint is the brand telling everyone (but especially Dean) what ranch he belongs to.

Let’s start with the obvious: it isn’t a metaphorical brand at all. It’s literal. It’s burned into his skin permanently (or at least, when the makeup department wants to put it there.) I’d argue that from the nature of it being notable as the only scar Dean has from being raised from Hell and later showing up during his sex scene with Anna that even if we don’t see the handprint, we’re meant to interpret it as continuing to be there for… well. The rest of his life, most likely. And that’s horrifying. The handprint is telling us two things when it shows up: one, letting us know that Dean’s resurrection was intentional and through a manner we as the audience don’t have the information to guess at yet. Anyone who watched the show airing, or watches it now without knowing about angels would have assumed demonic deal intervention as being the cause of Dean’s new lease on life, and this. handily. discards that theory. But secondly, it tells us that this resurrection was violating. All resurrections on Supernatural are.

We assume from Castiel’s line, you know the one, we all know the one, Mr. Gripped-You-Tight, that he’s the one who put it there. However, to then make a further leap that it was Castiel’s personal decision to do so is, I think, a misunderstanding of his role. Take that pin out now. Dean is not a person to Castiel at this point. They’re not friends. Dean is a tool for Heaven to use, a tool that should be honored and grateful to be picked up at all. Make no mistake: Castiel branded him for Heaven, not for himself. Castiel’s a ranchhand. They aren’t in the business of letting the cows run free if they look a little sad to be slaughtered later.

Castiel needs to start here for his arc to be as impactful as it is. He can’t begin rebellious. He has to learn how to doubt. He has to develop a personal friendship with Dean that threatens his allegiance to Heaven. He has to see Anna having chosen to fall rather than obey Heaven and to be betrayed by Uriel being so desperate that he’s turned to killing their brothers and sisters trying to find a way out from under Heaven’s control.

There’s another line I think gets misinterpreted a lot in this initial meeting. “You don’t think you deserve to be saved?” On its face, easy bait for someone looking for shipping fodder, but that misses the actual point of the line. It’s a powerplay. We don’t learn until later why Dean wouldn’t think he deserves to be saved (aside from his general Winchester levels of self-esteem, but knowing that trait about him actually serves as a pretty good red herring to mask real reason Dean is thinking about himself as irredeemable now until the reveal. It’s not that Dean had a low opinion about himself in general, but that he tortured people in Hell and can never forgive himself for that.) , but Castiel does know. All of Heaven knows what Dean’s sin in Hell was. Without saying it, Castiel can remind Dean of it here. This line isn’t about Dean being so inherently good that Castiel had to rescue him. It’s about making sure Dean knows that the only way he can be ‘redeemed’ is through obedience to the heavenly powers who own his ass now. This is how he deserves to be saved. Because God commanded it. Because they have work for him.

And if he doesn’t bow? Then, as Castiel puts it in the very next episode, “I dragged you out of Hell. I can throw you back in.” This threat hanging over Dean’s head won’t go away for the rest of the season, not from Heaven. The only shift is that Castiel’s continued doubt and disobedience levels the playing field between them. They’ll both be punished, rather than Castiel taking on the role of disciplinarian. (It’s a really clever way of dealing with that power gap between them, actually. There’s always a bigger fish.)

The handprint and Castiel’s early conversations with Dean serve as a reminder of the precarious position he’s in. We shouldn’t take him ‘being saved’ at face value, no more than we should take Heaven being good just because they’re the angels in this equation as a given. Dean hasn’t been saved. He’s being used, just as much (if not arguably more) than Ruby is using Sam. (Because at least Ruby truly believes this is for Sam’s benefit, in the end.) And the worst part is how aware of it Dean is. How could he not be? His entire stint in Hell is defined by how Alistair used him. He’s just been handed off to a different owner, one that will still happily push him into the thing they ‘saved’ him from the minute it proves useful. Dean needing to torture Alistair reminds us just how little his circumstances have actually changed. He’s not allowed to say no to this.

So. The handprint is Heaven’s mark of ownership. It’s Dean’s status as their tool, their victim, burned into his flesh and inescapable. What does it mean when Anna places her hand over it?

I’ll lay my cards on the table. I’ve been thinking about this for so long because the aforementioned tendency to assume that the handprint is evidence for destiel means that the scene between Anna & Dean also gets lumped into being interpreted as more evidence for destiel. For over a decade, I have endured people joking about Anna being jealous of Cas for getting to leave a mark on their boytoy. And that’s one of the nicer things the Supernatural fandom will say about a woman who they perceive as a threat to their ship.

So, not to be rude or anything, but fuck Castiel. This ain’t about him.

This scene—It’s a lovely scene, a fantastic continuation of Dean and Anna’s previous conversation into the language of a sex scene—is about two people who have both been used and threatened by Heaven connecting over that shared trauma. Before, Anna gives space for Dean to open up about Hell, but he can’t, not yet, and though she knows what he’s gone through, she hasn’t been there herself. But when it comes to what Heaven has made of them, she does understand. It’s an incredibly vulnerable moment.

You make the handprint about Dean and Cas, and you erase what that scene is about entirely: the way Heaven’s abuse has tangled itself deep into Dean and Anna’s lives, into their bodies, and how they can resist it, if only for a few moments together.

The handprint was never about Castiel at all. It was about Heaven and its dehumanization of Dean.

[atlurbanist]

Transit votes fail in Cobb & Gwinnett and I'm weary

Darin Givens | Nov 6, 2024

Voters in Cobb and Gwinnett Counties both rejected chances to boost funding for transit in this election. What the fudge, people?

The hope was that voters would be more likely to support these measure than previous ones because this time they weren't about joining MARTA.

Seems like they might as well have made them MARTA votes after all.

The transit-tax referendums would have supported new bus lines and rapid transit systems. Only 38% of votes in Cobb supported theirs; though it was at least closer in Gwinnett, with 47% in support of theirs.

And in case you needed another reminder that "shared identity doesn't necessarily equal shared goals" -- Cobb and Gwinnett both voted blue in this election. They just didn't feel like going all the way and supporting transit.

So the struggle bus continues to struggle, and of course it's the most vulnerable among us who suffer when transit options are weak. I had hoped things were changing for the better with support for transit ridership in the core counties. Maybe they are in a very slow way, but slow acknowledgement of the needs for sustainable, equitable mobility isn't good enough in 2024.

What action can we take? For now, support the *heck* (pardon my language) out of proposals to add affordable housing near existing transit lines, especially ones with good pedestrian infrastructure. Market-rate housing is needed in these spots too and we shouldn't block those, but obviously affordable units are the biggest need. Dense up.

And support the ever-loving *shizzle* out of any proposal to improve existing transit conditions so that riding buses (and trains) is an obviously awesome option.

What else?

[the-judicial-assistants-notebook]

you guys ever heard the Dahlia to Lamiroir transition from the 20th anniversary concert? it drives me a bit insane.