ADVERTISEMENTS

A UN-Tribunal convicted and sentenced Duch today, the first major Khmer Rouge figure defendant to be brought to justice.  I believe post-war prosecutions for human rights violations are beneficial for victims, but that there are risks as well.  When people who have committed heinous crimes get less than the maximum sentence, I think it is foreseeable that many victims will be hurt again.  On the other hand, if every defendant gets the maximum sentence, the tribunal will not appear to be objective.  Then, there are other ways to deal with post-war open wounds, such as truth commissions and civil litigation, which may occur in courts beyond the borders of the nation that experienced war (often internal civil war).  I would love to hear others' viewpoints about these issues.  What do you think is helpful for the individual victims and the nation and why?  Should U.S. courts hear post-war claims?  If so, when and why?  Should it depend on the location of victims who fled a murderous regime or their property or on whether significant remedies are available in the nation where the war occurred?  Should it depend on a green light from the executive branch? 

I am currently exploring the intersection of the "open wounds" idea and the cultural property arena.   For example, Tuol Sleng, the prison where Duch tortured and murdered so many innocents, is now a museum.  Part of its roof collapsed last week.  Some people said the souls of the dead were crying out for justice.  Certain types of property, real property and chattels, has meaning that transcends finances.  Caring for it thoughtfully can help heal post-war wounds, whereas its destruction can feel like new wounds to wartime victims. 

Another example of the intersection of human rights, war and cultural property concerns terrorism and antiquities found within the borders of modern-day Iran now located in U.S. museums.  The U.S. Congress passed ineffectual, ?sound bite? anti-terrorism legislation that has foisted conflicting jurisdictional mandates upon the federal courts, sucked terrorist victims into a vacuous, exhausting drama with no chance for justice, and interfered with the President?s ability to conduct diplomatic relations in the Middle East.  One group of victims is mired in multiple jurisdictions trying to enforce an extremely large default judgment against the Islamic Republic of Iran by forcing auctions of antiquities collections housed in Harvard University, the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago), and the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston), among others.  Congress in this political posturing has triggered the Department of Justice to participate in the litigation counter to the victims? interest.  The victims likely feel ignored and maligned by their own President, while Congress all along was the master puppeteer of their false hopes.  Here's a draft article on the subject.

No one believes that dealing with property ever will bring back the dead or afford full "justice" to victims, but many of us believe that the symbolism of such property is significant.  Do you have thoughts on these issues?  Can you provide other examples of post-war wounds that need redress to allow healing to occur? 

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.