What is it about?
The atrocious abuses committed under South America's dictators resulted in a wave of amnesties for international crimes and gross human rights violations. Following transitions to democracy, challenges from victims and civil society gradually unpicked several of these amnesties, leading to hundreds of perpetrators facing prosecution. These developments prompted far-reaching claims in academic literature and policy reports regarding the significance of the erosion of South America's amnesties for shaping international legal norms and policy preferences on amnesties. This article draws on a comparative analysis of case law from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and national courts as well as legislative changes to interrogate the significance of these claims.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
I argue that there is a regional trend in South America to reject amnesties for international crimes and gross violations of human rights enacted during transitions from dictatorship, but that amnesties for less serious offences and other leniency measures, such as reduced sentences or alternative sanctions, continue to be viewed as a legal and necessary component of transitions from conflict to peace. The innovative and multifaceted proposals on amnesty and justice in the peace agreement between the Colombian government and FARC are found to fall within the acceptable parameters of this regional trend. I further argue that there is little evidence that the regional developments in South America are indicative of a global normative shift, and that as a result, it there is no evidence to suggest that amnesties are going to disappear as a global phenomenon.
Perspectives
Since Argentina's amnesty laws were annulled by legislation in 2003, I have repeatedly read or heard statements that this and other efforts to erode amnesties in South America were reflective of a global normative shift from impunity to accountability. I agreed that these events were momentous, not least for the victims and survivors whose cases were reopened. However, I was also conscious that over the same period, new amnesties continued to be enacted in other parts of the world for serious crimes and that from a global perspective it is rare for past amnesties to be annulled. Writing this paper gave me the opportunity to reflect these seemingly contradictory trajectories. I think the findings contradict some of the more optimistic assumptions that greeted the annulling of amnesties in South America; instead, the paper calls for greater reflection on the factors that led to the annulment of South America's amnesties to understand how these events could potentially be repeated elsewhere.
Prof Louise Mallinder
University of Ulster
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: THE END OF AMNESTY OR REGIONAL OVERREACH? INTERPRETING THE EROSION OF SOUTH AMERICA’S AMNESTY LAWS, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, May 2016, Cambridge University Press,
DOI: 10.1017/s0020589316000166.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
