Kathryn Sikkink talks to the Herald during her visit to Buenos Aires ten days ago.
Herald Staff
Harvard Professor Kathryn Sikkink talks to the Herald about transitional justice
Kathryn Sikkink is a Political Science professor at Harvard University. In her book The Justice Cascade, Sikkink argues that trials for human rights violations are reshaping the world of politics. Sikkink has intimate knowledge of Argentina’s efforts to hold accountable those who were responsible for human rights violations during the 1976-1983 military dictatorship and was in Buenos Aires in 1985 when Junta leaders were forced to stand trial. As a result, she believes Argentina has led a revolution in the idea of justice. In more recent rights violations, the author says officials from the George W. Bush administration should be held accountable for torture that was carried out around the world as a result of the so-called “War on Terror.” Sikkink was in Buenos Aires earlier this month to give a lecture at the Di Tella University.
Is it possible to consider cases of torture following the September 11 attack as crimes against humanity?
According to the Rome Statute, whenever torture is systematically used against civilians, it can be considered a crime against humanity. So far no important official from the Bush administration has been prosecuted. I think it is time to consider trials abroad.
Do you mean in the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
No, because the US has not ratified the Rome Statute. I am thinking of trying them in domestic courts in countries that have ratified the Convention against Torture, which says that a torturer has to be judged in a national court or extradited to be tried. It is a form of universal jurisdiction. The US ratified the Convention, so there is no legal obstacle.
But there are political ones, right?
Everyone says the US can punish those who dare to do this. Some time ago, Belgium was conducting this kind of trials but Washington threatened to remove a NATO base from the country and the trials stopped. Trials can be held but there is a problem: officials have to be in the country that agrees to try them.
But the US will never extradite them…
Yes, but we should follow their steps, their trips.
Beyond the Bush administration, doesn’t President Obama owe a debt to society for his failure to close down the Guantánamo detention centre like he promised?
I always talk about trials abroad because there are no legal obstacles. I don’t see clearly how to prosecute crimes committed in Guantánamo. But from a human rights perspective, of course, they should close down Guantánamo and pay economic compensations.
What do you think is the role of the ICC at a time when several countries — including Argentina — are using domestic courts to try human rights violations?
The ICC has to work as a backup system. The majority of the trials are supposed to be carried out at home and that’s right because victims are there, it is easier to collect testimonies, they are held in the original language.
How has Argentina changed the idea of justice for crimes against humanity?
It was the third country in the world that decided to use domestic courts to try its own officials after Greece and Portugal. But the Argentine case has been more in the spotlight than the others, mainly because Argentine activists then started working at international organizations. Argentina had the first real truth commission—the trials for truth and the first forensic anthropology team. All these initiatives helped to define individual criminal responsibilities.
Is it true that human rights activists started analyzing the idea of taking repressors to court even before 1979?
Yes, there were groups that wanted justice and some others that said truth was enough. But the first time justice was recommended as the right path was after the 1979 visit by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
After World War II, states were said to be liable for human rights violations but Argentina wanted to determine individual liability for crimes. What is the advantage of doing so?
The UN human rights system is mostly based on the idea of state liability but I think that system was not making progress. It was not enough to dissuade or prevent crimes, mostly because the state had to pay for the crimes. I mean to pay economic compensations, which were funded by taxpayers and not by the criminals. This new method obliges those responsible to pay and also makes them think twice before launching a repressive campaign.
Do you think trials would have existed without an active human rights movement?
No. But state officials also played an important role. For instance, the creation of the Conadep or the trial against the junta leaders was a decision by the Executive. The nullification of the Due Obedience and Full Stop Laws was a decision by the Congress, which was then backed by the Supreme Court.
Thirty years after the end of the dictatorship, Argentina continues to launch trials against those accused of crimes against humanity. Could this be considered “transitional justice”?
I don’t like that expression. I prefer accountability or individual criminal responsibility. Argentina has consolidated democracy and, in spite of this, trials continue.
Brazil created a truth commission more than 25 years after the end of dictatorship. Can we say it has been an extended transition?
Yes, it was. It is a country where amnesty is still valid and the claim for justice was never answered. I think it is an improvement but Brazil still needs justice. A truth commission is not enough. Rights are not improved in countries that do not seek justice.
Argentina is currently starting to examine the role played by business leaders during the dictatorship. What do you think about this strategy?
Argentina is once again on the cutting edge of international justice. Companies are not being investigated. They are probing civilians who were involved in the repression.
In your book, you say that South Africa analyzed the Argentine experience to prosecute criminals after the apartheid. Aren’t the South African and Argentine models at odds?
People tend to speak romantically about South Africa, saying that it was a model that led to reconciliation. But if you talk to people from there, they do not believe that their truth commission was exemplary. It was supposed to give amnesty to those providing information and to send to court those who refused to admit the truth. But that didn’t happen. According to our records, only 11 trials were conducted.
Would it be right to say then that the Argentine strategy to prosecute dictatorship crimes was more successful?
Yes. The Argentine case is really important because it combines many transitional devices, such as a truth commission, trials, economic compensations, memorials. South Africa lacks of many of them.
@lucianabertoia
Herald Staff
Harvard Professor Kathryn Sikkink talks to the Herald about transitional justice
Kathryn Sikkink is a Political Science professor at Harvard University. In her book The Justice Cascade, Sikkink argues that trials for human rights violations are reshaping the world of politics. Sikkink has intimate knowledge of Argentina’s efforts to hold accountable those who were responsible for human rights violations during the 1976-1983 military dictatorship and was in Buenos Aires in 1985 when Junta leaders were forced to stand trial. As a result, she believes Argentina has led a revolution in the idea of justice. In more recent rights violations, the author says officials from the George W. Bush administration should be held accountable for torture that was carried out around the world as a result of the so-called “War on Terror.” Sikkink was in Buenos Aires earlier this month to give a lecture at the Di Tella University.
Is it possible to consider cases of torture following the September 11 attack as crimes against humanity?
According to the Rome Statute, whenever torture is systematically used against civilians, it can be considered a crime against humanity. So far no important official from the Bush administration has been prosecuted. I think it is time to consider trials abroad.
Do you mean in the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
No, because the US has not ratified the Rome Statute. I am thinking of trying them in domestic courts in countries that have ratified the Convention against Torture, which says that a torturer has to be judged in a national court or extradited to be tried. It is a form of universal jurisdiction. The US ratified the Convention, so there is no legal obstacle.
But there are political ones, right?
Everyone says the US can punish those who dare to do this. Some time ago, Belgium was conducting this kind of trials but Washington threatened to remove a NATO base from the country and the trials stopped. Trials can be held but there is a problem: officials have to be in the country that agrees to try them.
But the US will never extradite them…
Yes, but we should follow their steps, their trips.
Beyond the Bush administration, doesn’t President Obama owe a debt to society for his failure to close down the Guantánamo detention centre like he promised?
I always talk about trials abroad because there are no legal obstacles. I don’t see clearly how to prosecute crimes committed in Guantánamo. But from a human rights perspective, of course, they should close down Guantánamo and pay economic compensations.
What do you think is the role of the ICC at a time when several countries — including Argentina — are using domestic courts to try human rights violations?
The ICC has to work as a backup system. The majority of the trials are supposed to be carried out at home and that’s right because victims are there, it is easier to collect testimonies, they are held in the original language.
How has Argentina changed the idea of justice for crimes against humanity?
It was the third country in the world that decided to use domestic courts to try its own officials after Greece and Portugal. But the Argentine case has been more in the spotlight than the others, mainly because Argentine activists then started working at international organizations. Argentina had the first real truth commission—the trials for truth and the first forensic anthropology team. All these initiatives helped to define individual criminal responsibilities.
Is it true that human rights activists started analyzing the idea of taking repressors to court even before 1979?
Yes, there were groups that wanted justice and some others that said truth was enough. But the first time justice was recommended as the right path was after the 1979 visit by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
After World War II, states were said to be liable for human rights violations but Argentina wanted to determine individual liability for crimes. What is the advantage of doing so?
The UN human rights system is mostly based on the idea of state liability but I think that system was not making progress. It was not enough to dissuade or prevent crimes, mostly because the state had to pay for the crimes. I mean to pay economic compensations, which were funded by taxpayers and not by the criminals. This new method obliges those responsible to pay and also makes them think twice before launching a repressive campaign.
Do you think trials would have existed without an active human rights movement?
No. But state officials also played an important role. For instance, the creation of the Conadep or the trial against the junta leaders was a decision by the Executive. The nullification of the Due Obedience and Full Stop Laws was a decision by the Congress, which was then backed by the Supreme Court.
Thirty years after the end of the dictatorship, Argentina continues to launch trials against those accused of crimes against humanity. Could this be considered “transitional justice”?
I don’t like that expression. I prefer accountability or individual criminal responsibility. Argentina has consolidated democracy and, in spite of this, trials continue.
Brazil created a truth commission more than 25 years after the end of dictatorship. Can we say it has been an extended transition?
Yes, it was. It is a country where amnesty is still valid and the claim for justice was never answered. I think it is an improvement but Brazil still needs justice. A truth commission is not enough. Rights are not improved in countries that do not seek justice.
Argentina is currently starting to examine the role played by business leaders during the dictatorship. What do you think about this strategy?
Argentina is once again on the cutting edge of international justice. Companies are not being investigated. They are probing civilians who were involved in the repression.
In your book, you say that South Africa analyzed the Argentine experience to prosecute criminals after the apartheid. Aren’t the South African and Argentine models at odds?
People tend to speak romantically about South Africa, saying that it was a model that led to reconciliation. But if you talk to people from there, they do not believe that their truth commission was exemplary. It was supposed to give amnesty to those providing information and to send to court those who refused to admit the truth. But that didn’t happen. According to our records, only 11 trials were conducted.
Would it be right to say then that the Argentine strategy to prosecute dictatorship crimes was more successful?
Yes. The Argentine case is really important because it combines many transitional devices, such as a truth commission, trials, economic compensations, memorials. South Africa lacks of many of them.
@lucianabertoia
