Amnesties in Transition: Punishment, Restoration, and the Governance of Mercy

Kieran McEvoy, Louise Mallinder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)
49 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Despite the much vaunted triumph of human rights, amnesties continue to be a frequently used technique of post-conflict transitional justice. For many critics, they are synonymous with unaccountability and injustice. This article argues that despite the rhetoric, there is no universal duty to prosecute under international law and that issues of selectivity and proportionality present serious challenges to the retributive rationale for punishment in international justice. It contends that many of the assumptions concerning the deterrent effect in the field are also oversold and poorly theorized. It also suggests that appropriately designed restorative amnesties can be both lawful and effective as routes to truth recovery, reconciliation, and a range of other peacemaking goals. Rather than mere instruments of impunity, amnesties should instead be seen as important institutions in the governance of mercy, the reassertion of state sovereignty and, if properly constituted, the return of law to a previously lawless domain.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)410-440
JournalJournal of Law and Society
Volume39
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2012

Fingerprint

amnesty
restoration
penalty
governance
justice
proportionality
reconciliation
international law
sovereignty
critic
rhetoric
human rights
Law
present

Keywords

  • amnesty
  • punishment
  • transitional justice
  • deterrence
  • retribution
  • restorative justice

Cite this

@article{922d80fa97784dfb93fd1ecd65572471,
title = "Amnesties in Transition: Punishment, Restoration, and the Governance of Mercy",
abstract = "Despite the much vaunted triumph of human rights, amnesties continue to be a frequently used technique of post-conflict transitional justice. For many critics, they are synonymous with unaccountability and injustice. This article argues that despite the rhetoric, there is no universal duty to prosecute under international law and that issues of selectivity and proportionality present serious challenges to the retributive rationale for punishment in international justice. It contends that many of the assumptions concerning the deterrent effect in the field are also oversold and poorly theorized. It also suggests that appropriately designed restorative amnesties can be both lawful and effective as routes to truth recovery, reconciliation, and a range of other peacemaking goals. Rather than mere instruments of impunity, amnesties should instead be seen as important institutions in the governance of mercy, the reassertion of state sovereignty and, if properly constituted, the return of law to a previously lawless domain.",
keywords = "amnesty, punishment, transitional justice, deterrence, retribution, restorative justice",
author = "Kieran McEvoy and Louise Mallinder",
year = "2012",
month = "9",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "410--440",
journal = "Journal of Law and Society",
issn = "0263-323X",
number = "3",

}

Amnesties in Transition: Punishment, Restoration, and the Governance of Mercy. / McEvoy, Kieran; Mallinder, Louise.

In: Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 39, No. 3, 01.09.2012, p. 410-440.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Amnesties in Transition: Punishment, Restoration, and the Governance of Mercy

AU - McEvoy, Kieran

AU - Mallinder, Louise

PY - 2012/9/1

Y1 - 2012/9/1

N2 - Despite the much vaunted triumph of human rights, amnesties continue to be a frequently used technique of post-conflict transitional justice. For many critics, they are synonymous with unaccountability and injustice. This article argues that despite the rhetoric, there is no universal duty to prosecute under international law and that issues of selectivity and proportionality present serious challenges to the retributive rationale for punishment in international justice. It contends that many of the assumptions concerning the deterrent effect in the field are also oversold and poorly theorized. It also suggests that appropriately designed restorative amnesties can be both lawful and effective as routes to truth recovery, reconciliation, and a range of other peacemaking goals. Rather than mere instruments of impunity, amnesties should instead be seen as important institutions in the governance of mercy, the reassertion of state sovereignty and, if properly constituted, the return of law to a previously lawless domain.

AB - Despite the much vaunted triumph of human rights, amnesties continue to be a frequently used technique of post-conflict transitional justice. For many critics, they are synonymous with unaccountability and injustice. This article argues that despite the rhetoric, there is no universal duty to prosecute under international law and that issues of selectivity and proportionality present serious challenges to the retributive rationale for punishment in international justice. It contends that many of the assumptions concerning the deterrent effect in the field are also oversold and poorly theorized. It also suggests that appropriately designed restorative amnesties can be both lawful and effective as routes to truth recovery, reconciliation, and a range of other peacemaking goals. Rather than mere instruments of impunity, amnesties should instead be seen as important institutions in the governance of mercy, the reassertion of state sovereignty and, if properly constituted, the return of law to a previously lawless domain.

KW - amnesty

KW - punishment

KW - transitional justice

KW - deterrence

KW - retribution

KW - restorative justice

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 410

EP - 440

JO - Journal of Law and Society

JF - Journal of Law and Society

SN - 0263-323X

IS - 3

ER -