Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-Critique, (Anti) Politics and Criminalization: Reflections on the History and Trajectory of the Human Rights Movement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Approaches to International Law

Abstract

In this chapter, I identify and critically discuss three aspects of the history and trajectory of the human rights movement from the 1970s until today: its increasing tendency toward self-critique, its roots in and ongoing struggle with a commitment to being antipolitical, and its relatively recent attachment to criminal law as its enforcement mechanism of choice. In part, I contend that the latter two aspects work in tandem to defer, even suppress, substantive debates over visions of social justice, even while relying on criminal justice systems of which the movement has long been critical. The chapter pursues this discussion through an in-depth reading of two related works by David Kennedy, the first published in 1985 and the second, which reproduces but also revisits the writing and reception of the first, in 2009. Because the pieces are primarily situated in Uruguay in 1984, it contextualizes them and my own thesis in a 25-year old struggle in Uruguay over whether to grant amnesty to military and political officials for acts committed during the dictatorship that ended in 1985.

The left lost the war. All we have now is justice.

Guatemalan Human Rights Activist, 2010

Many thanks to José María Beneyto and the Institute for European Studies at the University CEU San Pablo for organizing the conference on the occasion of the publication of the Spanish translation of David Kennedy’s, Rights of Spring, out of which this chapter grew. I benefitted greatly from the conference discussion, as well as the feedback from a faculty workshop at the University of Florida. I am also grateful to Henry Steiner for his extensive comments on an earlier draft of the article, to Dan Brinks and Ariel Dulitzky for useful conversations, and to Juandrea Bates for outstanding research assistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kennedy 1985.

  2. 2.

    That said, Kennedy’s delegation was the first private foreign delegation since 1978 allowed into the particular prisons in Uruguay that it visited. Breslin et al. 1984, 2. Although the International Committee of the Red Cross had visited both prisons, its reports were of course confidential. Breslin et al. 1984, 27 note 1. In the report it wrote for its sponsors, Kennedy's delegation described the government as cooperative in terms of supporting its mission to visit the prisoners, and saw such cooperation as one of several then-recent events that “raise hopes for an orderly return to democratic, civilian rule”. Breslin et al. 1984, 20.

  3. 3.

    Kennedy 2002.

  4. 4.

    For other self-reflective accounts, see Cain et al. 2004, Fassin 2007, Orbinski 2008, Branch 2011. For a typology of scholarly critiques of human rights more generally, see Mégret 2012 (in this volume), identifying the following critiques, which I have reworded slightly: (1) human rights as indeterminate; (2) human rights as neo-colonial; (3) human rights as privileging already privileged voices; (4) human rights as substantively and problematically biased—in favor of market capitalism, individualism, rule of law; (5) human rights as institutionalized and as governance; (6) human rights as compromised politically—committed to incrementalism and tinkering—rather than revolution.

  5. 5.

    Although scholars disagree about the roots of the contemporary human rights movement, I basically agree with Samuel Moyn’s situation of its founding in the late 1970s, at least in or with regard to the United States, Europe, and Latin America. Moyn 2010.

  6. 6.

    Kennedy 2009, 9.

  7. 7.

    Kennedy 1985, 1417.

  8. 8.

    Kennedy 2009. In this chapter, I cite the book, not the original article, unless some part of the article is not in the book. Still, I try to make it clear whether the part I refer to was originally written in 1985 or 2009.

  9. 9.

    Ibid., 9.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., 3.

  11. 11.

    As early as the mid-1940s, scholars had begun to criticize international human rights for these and other reasons. A volume edited by UNESCO published in 1949, based on a 1947 survey that it conducted of scholars from around the world about their perspectives on a declaration on human rights, demonstrates a range of these opinions. See, e.g. Hessen 1949, Laski 1949 and Sommerville 1949 (on Western bias); Hessen 1949, Laski 1949, and Maritain 1949 (on property rights and capitalism); Gerard 1949, Tchechko, 1949 and Northrop 1949 (on influence over local culture); Riezler, 1949, Gandhi 1949, Lewis 1949 and Chung-Shu 1949 (on the emphasis on rights rather than duties). Of course, if one traces the intellectual history of international human rights to the enlightenment, as some have done, critiques abound from as disparate sources as Bentham, Burke, and Marx. See, e.g., Hunt 2007. See Moyn 2010, 11–43, for a challenge to such historiography due in part to its failure to capture the importance of the international aspect of the human rights movement.

  12. 12.

    See Moyn 2010, 84–120, for an argument that the anticolonialist movement was a self-determination, rather than human rights, movement. For a related argument about this period and later with regard to indigenous rights, see generally Engle 2010.

  13. 13.

    Many have theorised the reasons for the emergence of the movement at this time and what, if any, relationship there was between the pro-democracy movements in the two regions. Most trace the movement to the formation of Helsinki Watch and its many affiliates, following on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and the Helinki process beginning in 1977. See, e.g., Keck and Sikkink 1998, Lauren 2001, Youngs 2002, Mertus and Helsing 2006. In contrast, Moyn points to the large amount of philanthropic money poured into the cause in 1977, contending that the strength or appeal of the movement would not have been predicted in 1975: “When [the Helsinki Final Act] had been signed, no one could have predicted that Eastern bloc dissidents would mobilize in such numbers or that an American president would throw himself into the cause”. Moyn 2010, 172. For discussions of the relationship in the movements between Eastern Europe and Latin America, see Moyn 2010, 133–167.

  14. 14.

    Moyn 2010, 141.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., 142 (quoting Markarian 2005, 141).

  17. 17.

    As Markarian puts it in the context of Uruguayan exiles, many “reevaluated the role of international organizations formerly conceived as ‘tools of U.S. imperialism’ such as the OAS and of allegedly ‘apolitical’ organizations such as AI”. Markarian 2005, 177.

  18. 18.

    See, e.g., Frankenberg 1988, Freeman 1988, Minda 1989, Singer 1989, Oetken 1991, Purvis 1991, Goodrich 1993. Not until the mid to late 1990s did scholars even begin to consider the work in the context of international law and human rights. See, e.g., Spahn 1994, Carrasco 1996, Abbott 1999, Howland 2004.

  19. 19.

    Apparently my students were not alone in this reaction. Reflecting in 2009 on one of his own lines in “Spring Break” (“I feared that my desire to see the women prisoners, to cross the boundary guarded by these men, shared something with [the guards’] prurient fascination for our [female] guide”), Kennedy asks, “Was it wrong to think that?…In the intensity of identity politics, the flash of feminist anger that shot through the campus in the following years, I was told I should not have thought it”. Kennedy 2009, 17–18.

  20. 20.

    Kennedy 2009, 97.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., 98.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., 99.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., 102.

  24. 24.

    Based on the reports that Human Rights Watch includes in its historical database, the organization published at least forty-two reports between 1979 and 1986. Human Rights Watch Publications 2011. Likewise, according to its digital library of reports, Amnesty International issued at least twenty-five reports during the same period. Amnesty International Report Library 2011.

  25. 25.

    That said, one of his few references to it would be familiar to my students:

    So many people had told us their stories, looked to us for help, asked us to take on their struggle, to work when we got back. Even those who understood the limits of our context spoke with both resignation and hope about ‘international public opinion’ whose symbol we three became, if only for an instant. We kept saying that our institutions would ‘remain concerned,’ that we would write a report, that we would carry their story back. But three individuals cannot fulfill the promise implicit in the words ‘foreign,’ ‘American,’ ‘professional,’ ‘authority,’ ‘witness’.

  26. 26.

    Breslin et al. 1984, 20.

  27. 27.

    I have described elsewhere a similar splitting, in the context of strategic essentialism and in what is often referred to as “activist scholarship”. Engle 2010, 10–13.

  28. 28.

    Moyn 2010, 147.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., 141.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., 142 (quoting Markarian 2005, 99).

  32. 32.

    Markarian 2005, 4 (noting in general that the Latin American left “had previously rejected [a human rights] approach as ‘bourgeois’ and often opposed the main tenets of political liberalism”); 65 (describing a 1971 meeting organized by the National Convention of Workers and the national university on the relevance of human rights in Latin America and noting that “[d]espite being the subject of the conference, the great majority of the Uruguayan participants ignored the language of human rights used by international organizations…. In the final proceedings, the participants expressed that the ‘real implementation of human rights will be only possible through a fundamental structural change and the exercise of power by the popular classes’”.).

  33. 33.

    Ibid., 99. She quotes here the Stockholm chapter of the Committee for the Defense of Political Prisoners of Uruguay, which also stated in the same document Moyn quotes above, “The problem of the political prisoners should be confronted politically, positioned in terms of class struggle”.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., 102.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., 178.

  36. 36.

    I use this terminology instructively, to emphasize that depoliticisation is a political strategy, if not ideology.

  37. 37.

    Kennedy 2002, 121.

  38. 38.

    Kennedy 2009, 27.

  39. 39.

    Ibid.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., 28.

  41. 41.

    Brown 2004, 453.

  42. 42.

    Breslin et al. 1984, 21.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., 20 (citing World Medical Association, Declaration of Tokyo: Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment (1975).

  44. 44.

    Ibid., 21.

  45. 45.

    The delegation seemed more positive about the possibility of an opening with the Uruguayan government than with the U.S. embassy, about which it was remarkably critical. Ibid., 7 (“[D]espite a request by the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs that the United States embassy in Montevideo help us secure appointments and permission to visit the prisons, the embassy remained aloof and declined to help us in any way”). See also ibid., 8 (“The meeting was cordial in tone but empty of content”).

  46. 46.

    Kennedy 2009, 20.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., 65.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., 64.

  50. 50.

    Markarian 2005, 63 (quoting María E. Gilio, “Entrevista a un tupamaro”, Marcha, May 9, 1969, 12–13).

  51. 51.

    Ibid., 64 (quoting Letter from Arismendi to Sócrates Martínez, September 1973, in R. Arismendi, Uruguay y América Latina en los años 70, 229).

  52. 52.

    Ibid. For Markarian, it is important that denunciations of torture did not draw on human rights language. Rather, these attitudes were part of “a heroic language” employed by the left, which “made abuses part of their expected political experience and eluded legalistic references in order to privilege social and economic explanations”. Ibid., 65. For a detailed description of the Tupamaro National Liberation Movement from 1962 to 1972, its leftist ideology and style of guerilla warfare, see Porzecanski 1974. For a discussion of the history of the Tupamaros, including their reemergence as a part of the Frente Amplio in the 1980s, see Weinstein 2007. Uruguay’s current president, José Mujica, was a founding member of the Tupamaros. As I discuss below, he has been strongly in favor of prosecuting former military and police under the dictatorship.

  53. 53.

    Kennedy 2009, 66.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., 65.

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., 66.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., 67.

  59. 59.

    Mutua 2001.

  60. 60.

    Kennedy 2009, 41.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., 43.

  62. 62.

    Kennedy 1985, 1404. The first sentence can also be found at Kennedy 2009, 70–71.

  63. 63.

    Kennedy 2009, 72.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., 63.

  65. 65.

    In 1985, Ana seemed a stand-in for all the female prisoners in this regard. In 2009, however, Kennedy points out that “[t]hinking about it later, I realized we also imagined our forty-four-old [one of the other five female prisoners] as a spent warrior, different from Ana”. Ibid., 72.

  66. 66.

    Markarian 2005, 63.

  67. 67.

    Ibid.

  68. 68.

    Ibid.

  69. 69.

    See, e.g., Engle 2005; Halley 2008.

  70. 70.

    Kennedy 2009, 34.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., 33. In discussing the oscillation he experienced between relating to the warden in the warden’s professional and personal roles, Kennedy notes that he was likely to place the violence in the institution when they connected in their professional roles, but in the warden personally when they were sipping coffee together (even if inside the prison). “Working with this ambiguity…I avoided both blaming the prisoners for the violence against them and openly rebuking Warden Papillon’s account of their suffering”. Ibid., 34.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., 23–24.

  73. 73.

    Markarian 2005, 160–169.

  74. 74.

    For a genealogy of the term “transitional justice”, which places its earliest use in 1992, see Arthur 2009, 329–330.

  75. 75.

    Kennedy 2009, 31.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., 31–32.

  77. 77.

    Moyn 2010, 221.

  78. 78.

    Clark 2001.

  79. 79.

    For examples of opposition to amnesty laws, see Amnesty International 2011a (Uruguay), Amnesty International 2011d (Yemen), Amnesty International 2011c (Libya), Amnesty International 2010b (Sudan), Amnesty International 2010a (Chile).

  80. 80.

    For reports on the death penalty in the United States, see Amnesty International 2011b (United States), Amnesty International 2010a (United States), Amnesty International 2007 (United States), Amnesty International 2003 (United States). For a recent report on prison conditions, see Amnesty International 2011e (United States).

  81. 81.

    For a sense of this debate through the 1990s, see Roht-Arriaza 1990, Cohen 1995, Zalaquett 1995, Cassese 1998, Scharf 1999, Minow 1999.

  82. 82.

    For a lively debate over the nature of South African amnesty, see Meintjes and Mendez 2000, 88, arguing that South African amnesty “is a significant step in the evolution of domestic efforts to deal with the past in a manner that satisfies the requirements of international law," and Rakate 2001, 42, responding that South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was “totally unsatisfactory, but that it is what South Africans had to accept, because no other solution was politically or materially conceivable”, and contending that victims received nothing in the way of compensation and that the perpetrators remain convinced of their innocence. For a counter to Rakate, see Meintjes and Mendez 2001.

  83. 83.

    Inter-Am Ct. H.R. 2001, Case 75, Barrios Altos v. Peru, Judgment, para 43.

  84. 84.

    Inter-Am Ct. H.R. 2006, Case 12.057, Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, para 120 (“[E]ven though the Court notes that Decree Law No. 2.191 basically grants a self-amnesty, since it was issued by the military regime to avoid judicial prosecution of its own crimes, it points out that a State violates the American Convention when issuing provisions which do not conform to the obligations contemplated in said Convention….[T]he Court…addresses the ratio legis: granting an amnesty for the serious criminal acts contrary to international law that were committed by the military regime”).

  85. 85.

    Inter-Am Ct. H.R. 2010, Case 11.552, Gomes Lund v. Brazil, Judgment, para 136 (quoting Vote of the Rapporteur Minister in the Non-Compliance Action of the Fundamental Principle No. 153 resolved by the Federal Supreme Court).

  86. 86.

    Ibid., para 175.

  87. 87.

    El Senado y la Cámara de Representantes de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Ley Nº 15.848 Ley de caducidad de la pretensión punitiva del estado,1986.

  88. 88.

    Inter-Am Ct. H.R. 2011, Case 221, Gelman v Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, para 229.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., para 239.

  90. 90.

    See, e.g., Seibert-Fohr 2009, 108–109.

  91. 91.

    Inter-Am Ct. H.R. 2011, Case 221, Gelman v Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, para 195.

  92. 92.

    See, e.g., Mallinder 2007.

  93. 93.

    For an example of a recent argument in favor of amnesty on utilitarian grounds, see Freeman 2010. A review of the book suggests how unusual any argument for amnesty is today. “International popular opinion now stands firmly in opposition to amnesty and transitioning societies are generally expected to aggressively prosecute individuals responsible for human rights violations”. Minogue 2010, 307.

  94. 94.

    52.64 percent voted against repeal. Corte Electoral de Uruguay 2009.

  95. 95.

    Markarian 2005, 133.

  96. 96.

    Ibid. (quoting the Frente Amplio platform).

  97. 97.

    Ibid., 134.

  98. 98.

    Ibid.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., 136–137.

  100. 100.

    There has, however, been much speculation that, behind closed doors, an agreement had in fact been made in which Sanguinetti, with the acquiescence of some on the left, agreed to grant amnesty for the military. While the agreement—called the Naval Club Pact—“had not included explicit assurances of impunity, such an outcome was allegedly arranged”. Barahona de Brito 2001, 129.

  101. 101.

    El Senado y la Cámara de Representantes de la República Oriental del Uruguay. Ley Nº 15.737 Se aprueba la ley de amnistía, 1985.

  102. 102.

    Ibid. at Articles 1, 8–10. For discussion of these provisions and of the law that Sanguinetti initially proposed, see Mallinder 2009, 30–33.

  103. 103.

    Mallinder 2009, 34–35 (discussing articles 12 & 13 of the law). The law also returned all seized property and assets of those imprisoned or in exile, created the Comisón Nacional de Repatriacón (National Commission for Repatriation) to support returning exiles and ensured that public officials who had been dismissed because of their political beliefs could regain their former jobs or that their relatives would receive their pensions. Ibid., 35–36 (discussing Articles 24 and 25).

  104. 104.

    El Senado y la Cámara de Representantes de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Ley Nº 15.737 Se aprueba la ley de amnistía, 1985, Article 5 (“Quedan comprendidas en los efectos de esta amnistía todas las personas a quienes se hubiera atribuido la comisión de estos delitos, sea como autores, coautores o cómplices y a los encubridores de los mismos, hayan sido o no condenados o procesados, y aun cuando fueren reincidentes o habituales”).

  105. 105.

    This general history is relatively well-known and can be found, with some differences in emphases and detail, at Mallinder 2009; Markarian 2005; Barahona de Brito, 1997; Skaar 2011; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2010, Case 12.607, Gelman et al. v Uruguay, Application, paras 81–85.

  106. 106.

    See El Senado y la Cámara de Representantes de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Ley Nº 15.848 Ley de caducidad de la pretensión punitiva del estado, 1986, Articles 3 & 4. For a discussion of various efforts by President Tabaré Ramón Vázques Rosas, elected in 2005, to pursue investigations, partly by interpreting narrowly the scope of amnesty provided for in the Expiry Law, see Mallinder 2009, 65–68.

  107. 107.

    Indeed, the law itself states that it results from “the logic of events originating in the agreement between the political parties and armed forces in August 1984”. El Senado y la Cámara de Representantes de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Ley Nº 15.848 Ley de caducidad de la pretensión punitiva del estado,1986, Article 1 (“como consecuencia de la lógica de los hechos originados por el acuerdo celebrado entre partidos políticos y las Fuerzas Armadas en agosto de 1984”).

  108. 108.

    Skaar 2011, 145.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., 147.

  110. 110.

    Markarian 2005, 167.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., 168.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., 175–176. The refusal to push for accountability during the Naval Club Pact reappeared in the electoral campaign that elected Sanguinetti in 1985. According to Barahona de Brito, “although expressing sympathy with accountability, [the Blancos and the Frente Amplio] did not consistently or determinedly champion it”. Barahona de Brito 2001, 127.

  113. 113.

    For Argentina, see El Senado y Cámara de Diputados de La Nación Argentina, Ley 23.492 Ley de punto final, 1986 and El Senado y Cámara de Diputados de La Nación Argentina, Ley 23.521 Ley de obediencia debida, 1987. For Chile, see La Junta de Gobierno de Chile. Decreto Ley 2.191 Decreto ley de amnistía, 1978. For Brazil, see Congresso Nacional do Brasil. Lei 6683 Lei da anistia, 1979. For Peru, see El Congreso Constituyente Democrático, Ley 26.479 Conceden amnistía general a personal militar, policial y civil para diversos casos, 1992 and El Congreso Constituyente Democrático, Ley 26.492 Interpretación y alcances de la ley de amnistía, 1995.

  114. 114.

    Skaar 2011, 146.

  115. 115.

    See discussion of Article 4 of the law in supra note 106 and accompanying text. Although Vásquez opposed repealing the law, he did so on the ground that he could and would continue to pursue convictions under Article 4. Mallinder 2009, 65–66.

  116. 116.

    For discussion of the bases of the charges and convictions, see Galain Palermo 2010, 607–609, 616. Bordaberry died in July 2011 under house arrest after having been sentenced in 2010 to thirty years.

  117. 117.

    Skaar 2011, 185.

  118. 118.

    Ibid., 183-84 (referring to Suprema Corte de Justicia de Uruguay, Nibia Sabalsagaray Curutchet, Sentencia no. 365/09 (October 19, 2009)). Two subsequent decisions of the Court, one in October 2010 and another in February 2011, also found the application of the Expiry Law unconstitutional. Brunner 2011, note 19 (citing cases) and accompanying text.

  119. 119.

    Brunner 2011, notes 20–22 and accompanying text (discussing Suprema Corte de Justicia de Uruguay, Gavazzo Pereira, José Nino y Arab Fernández, José Ricardo, Sentencia no. 1501 (May 6, 2011)). For Brunner, the recent Supreme Court cases as a whole suggest that “[t]he Uruguayan judiciary’s approach to cases involving human rights abuses committed during the dictatorship appears to be as equivocal as that taken by the executive”.

  120. 120.

    Ibid., notes 23 and 24 and accompanying text.

  121. 121.

    El Senado y la Cámara de Representantes de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Ley de Imprescriptibilidad, 2011, Article 1 (“Se restablece la pretensión punitiva del Estado para todos los delitos cometidos en aplicación del terrorismo de Estado hasta el 1º de marzo de 1985); Article 3 (“Declárase que, los delitos a que refieren los artículos anteriores, son crímenes contra la humanidad de conformidad a los tratados internacionales de los que la República es parte”).

  122. 122.

    La Voz Interior, 28 Oct 2011. In the days following the repeal, numerous newspapers in Latin America and the United States repeated Colonel William Cedrez’s words. But, since then, no other member of the military has publically dencounced former Tupamaros and no cases have been filed against them.

  123. 123.

    In contrast, Markarian discusses how, in the early 1980s, many leftists gave testimonies that, rather than identifying those responsible for human rights abuses, “pursued…goals somewhat independent from the issue of criminal prosecutions”. Some of these appeals, she contends, differed from human rights language “in highlighting the ideological and political attachments of those who endured abuses, as well as in connecting human rights claims with their fight for further political and social change”. Markarian 2005, 169–170.

  124. 124.

    Pastor 2006, 1. (“Neopunitivismo, entendido ello como corriente político-criminal que se caracteriza por la renovada creencia mesiánica de que el poder punitivo puede y debe llegar a todos los rincones de la vida social, hasta el punto de confundir por completo, como se verá más abajo, la protección civil y el amparo constitucional con el derecho penal mismo”.).

  125. 125.

    Ibid.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., 3. Other scholars have also begun to make observations about the illiberality of international criminal law more generally. See, e.g., Robinson 2008, 927 (specifically asking: “How is it that a liberal system of criminal justice—one that strives to serve as a model for liberal systems—has come to embrace such illiberal doctrines?”).

  127. 127.

    Pastor 2006, 2.

  128. 128.

    Ibid., 3.

  129. 129.

    El Congreso de la República de Guatemala, Decreto N° 145–196 Ley de reconciliación nacional, 1996, Article 8.

  130. 130.

    See, e.g., Impunity Watch 2009 (reporting the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the El Jute massacre to reject the appeal of Guatemalan army officer Marco Antonio Sanchez Samoa, who claimed he was entitled to amnesty under the 1996 law).

  131. 131.

    That said, also at the time of writing of this chapter, Judge Baltasar Garzón was being tried in Spain for investigating crimes perpetrated by the Franco regime during the Spanish Civil War that were covered by a 1977 general amnesty.

  132. 132.

    Valladares 2011.

  133. 133.

    Kennedy 2009, 23–24.

References

  • Abbott K (1999) International relations theory, international law, and the regime governing atrocities in internal conflict. Am J Intern Law 93:361–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2003) United States of America: death by discrimination: the continuing role of race in capital cases. Amnesty International Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2007) United States of America: death and democracy. Amnesty International Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2010a) Chile: no immunity for crimes against humanity. Amnesty International Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2010b) Bringing power to justice: absence of immunity for heads of state before the International Criminal Court. Amnesty International Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2011a) Uruguay amnesty vote a missed opportunity for justice. Amnesty International Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2011b) United States of America: an embarrassment of hitches: reflections on the death penalty, 35 years after Gregg v. Georgia, as states scramble for lethal injection drugs. Amnesty International Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2011c) Libya urged to investigate whether Al-Gaddafi death was a war crime. Amnesty International Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2011d) Yemen: no immunity for serious violations under president Saleh. Amnesty International Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2011e) United States of America: the cruel and inhumane treatment of Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace. Amnesty International Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International Report Library (2011) Amnesty International Library Search Results Reports 1979-1986. In: Search Results. http://www.amnesty.org/en/ai_search?keywords=&show_advanced=true&title=&ai_index=&sort=date&start_date5Bdate5D=1979-01-01&end_date5Bdate5D=1986-12-30&region5B5D=**ALL**&issue%5B%5D=**ALL**&language5Ben5D&document_types%5Breports%5D=reports&form_build_id=form-898b5a3427f7c2a54f0b5e3813d1407c&form_id=amnestysearch_filters_form&op=Search. Accessed 3 February 2012

  • Arthur P (2009) How “transitions” reshaped human rights: a conceptual history of transitional justice. Hum Rights Q 31:321–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barahona de Brito A (1997) Human rights and democratization in Latin America: Uruguay and Chile. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barahona de Brito A (2001) Truth, justice, memory, and democratization in the Southern Cone. In: Barahona De Brito A, González Enríquez C, Aguilar P (eds) The politics of memory: transitional justice in democratizing societies. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 119–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch A (2011) Displacing human rights: war and intervention in Northern Uganda. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin P, Kennedy D, Goldstein R (1984) Report on mission to Uruguay. New York Academy of Sciences, Committee on Human Rights, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown W (2004) “The most we can hope for…”: Human rights and the politics of fatalism. South Atlantic Q 103:451–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner L (2011) Is Uruguay foundering on the path to accountability? The aftermath of the Gelman decision of the Inter-American Court. American Society of International Law. http://www.asil.org/accountability/summer_2011_3.cfm

  • Cain K, Postel H, Thomson A (2004) Emergency sex and other desperate measures: a true story from hell on earth. Miramax, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco E (1996) Opposition, justice, structuralism, and particularity: intersections between LatCrit theory and law and development studies. U Miami Inter-Am L Rev 28:313–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (1998) On the current trends towards criminal prosecution and punishment of breaches of international humanitarian law. Euro J Intern Law 9:2–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung-Shu L (1949) Human rights in the Chinese tradition. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO. 185–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark AM (2001) Diplomacy of conscience: Amnesty International and changing human rights norms. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S (1995) State crimes of previous regimes: knowledge, accountability, and the policing of the past. Law Soc Inq 20:7–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corte Electoral de Uruguay (2009) Elecciones nacionales, 25 de octubre de 2009. http://elecciones.corteelectoral.gub.uy/20091025/SSPMain.asp

  • Engle K (2005) Feminism and its (dis)contents: criminalizing wartime rape in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Am J Intern Law 99:778–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle K (2010) The elusive promise of indigenous development: rights, culture strategy. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassin D (2007) Humanitarianism as a politics of life. Publ Cult 19:499–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankenberg G (1988) Down by law: irony, seriousness, and reason. Northwest Univ Law Rev 83:360–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman A (1988) Racism, rights and the quest for equality of opportunity: a critical legal essay. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Libert Law Rev 295:295–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman M (2010) Necessary evils: amnesties and the search for justice. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gandhi M (1949) Letter to the director-general of UNESCO. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 3–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerard RW (1949) The rights of man: a biological approach. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 209–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich P (1993) Sleeping with the enemy: an essay on the politics of Critical Legal Studies in America. 68 University Law Review, New York 416–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Halley J (2008) Rape at Rome: feminist interventions in the criminalization of sex-related violence in positive international criminal Law. Mich J Intern Law 30:1–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Hessen S (1949) The rights of man in liberalism, socialism and communism. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 108–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Howland T (2004) UN human rights field presence as proactive instrument of peace and social change: lessons from Angola. Hum Rights Q 26:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch (2011) Human Rights Watch publications report titles by year: 1980-2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt L (2007) Inventing human rights: a history. W.W.Norton, New York/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Impunity Watch (2009) Guatemalan constitutional court decision paves the way for El Jute trial. http://www.impunitywatch.org/en/publication/36

  • Keck M, Sikkink K (1998) Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy D (1985) Spring break. Tex Law Rev 63:1377–1423

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy D (2002) The international human rights movement: part of the problem? Harv Hum Rights J 15:101–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy D (2009) The rights of spring: a memoir of innocence abroad. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Laski H (1949) Toward a universal declaration of human rights. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 78–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauren PG (2001) The evolution of international human rights: visions seen (Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights), 3rd edn. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis J (1949) On human rights. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 43–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallinder L (2007) Can amnesties and international justice be reconciled? Intern J Trans Justice 1:208–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallinder L (2009) Uruguay's evolving experience of amnesty and civil society's response. Transitional Justice Institute Research. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1387362 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1387362

  • Maritain J (1949) On the philosophy of human rights. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 72–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Markarian V (2005) Left in transformation: Uruguayan exiles and the Latin American human rights network, 1967–1984. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Meintjes G, Mendez J (2000) Reconciling amnesties with universal jurisdiction. Intern Law FORUM Du Droit International 2:76–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Meintjes, G., Mendez, J (2001) Reconciling amnesties with universal jurisdiction– A reply to Mr. Phenyo Keiseng Rakate, Intern Law FORUM Du Droit International 3:47–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Mégret F (2012) Where does the critique of international human rights stand? an exploration in 18 vignettes in this collection new approaches to international law: lessons from the European experience

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertus J, Helsing J (2006) Human rights and conflict: exploring the links between rights, law, and peace building. United States Institute of Peace, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Minda G (1989) Jurisprudential movements of the 1980s. Ohio State Law J 50:599–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Minogue O (2010) Peace vs. justice: the utility of amnesties. Criminal Justice Ethics 29:306–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Minow M (1999) Between vengeance and forgiveness: facing history after genocide and mass violence. Beacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyn S (2010) The last utopia: human rights in history. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutua M (2001) Savages, victims, and saviors: the metaphor of human rights. Harv Intern Law J 42:201–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Northrop F (1949) Toward a bill of rights for the united nations. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 181–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Oetken JP (1991) Form and substance in Critical Legal Studies. Yale Law J 100:2209–2228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orbinski J (2008) An imperfect offering: humanitarian action for the twenty-first century. Doubleday, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Palermo G (2010) The prosecution of international crimes in Uruguay. Intern Crim Law Rev 10:601–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor D (2006) La deriva neopunitivista de organismos y activistas como causa del desprestigio actual de los derechos humanos. Revista Jurídica: Nueva Doctrina Penal 1:73–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Porzecanski A (1974) Uruguay’s Tupamaros: the urban guerrilla. Praeger Publishers, Santa Barbara

    Google Scholar 

  • Purvis N (1991) Critical Legal Studies in public international law. Harv Intern Law J 32:81–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakate P (2001) Reconciling amnesties with universal jurisdiction in South Africa: a response to Garth Meintjes and Juan Mendez. Intern Law FORUM Du Droit International 3:42–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Riezler K (1949) Reflections on human rights. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 145–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson D (2008) The identity crisis of international criminal law. Leiden J Intern Law 21:925–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roht-Arriaza N (1990) State responsibility to investigate and prosecute grave human rights violations in international law. Calif Law Rev 78:449–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharf M (1999) Amnesty exception to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court. Cornell Intern Law J 32:507–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert-Fohr A (2009) Prosecuting serious human rights violations. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Singer J (1989) Should lawyers care about philosophy? Duke Law J 1989:1752–1783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skaar E (2011) Judicial independence and human rights in Latin America: violations, politics, and prosecution. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville J (1949) Comparison of the Soviet and Western democratic principles with special reference to human rights. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 139–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Spahn E (1994) Waiting for credentials: feminist theories of enforcement of international human rights. Am Univ Law Rev 44:1053–1083

    Google Scholar 

  • Tchechko B (1949) The conception of the rights of man in the USSR based on official documents. Human rights: comments and interpretation: a symposium edited by UNESCO, 149–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Valladares D (2011) Military allies take ex-guerillas, journalists to court. Inter Press Service, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106314

  • Weinstein M (2007) The left’s long road to power in Uruguay. In: Deonandan K, Close D, Prevost G (eds.) From revolutionary movements to political parties: cases from Latin America and Africa. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, 67–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngs R (2002) The European Union and democracy in Latin America. Latin Am Politics Soc 44:111–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zalaquett J (1995) Confronting human rights violations committed by former governments: principles applicable and political constraints. In: Kritz N (ed) Transitional justice. United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, pp 3–31

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Minerva House Drysdale Regents Chair in Law, Founder and Co-Director, Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice, University of Texas, Texas, TX, USA

    Karen Engle

Authors
  1. Karen Engle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Engle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Instituto de Estudios Europeos, Universidad CEU San Pablo, Avenida del Valle 21, Madrid, 28003, Spain

    José María Beneyto

  2. , Institute for Global Law and Policy, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts Avenue 1575, Cambridge, 02138, Massachusetts, USA

    David Kennedy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Engle, K. (2012). Self-Critique, (Anti) Politics and Criminalization: Reflections on the History and Trajectory of the Human Rights Movement. In: Beneyto, J., Kennedy, D. (eds) New Approaches to International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-879-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation