Localizing Global Justice:

Rethinking Law and Human Rights in Southeast Asia

Call for Papers

Weatherhead East Asian Institute

Columbia University, New York City

November 4-5, 2011

Kristy Kelly (Columbia) and Duncan McCargo (Columbia/Leeds)

Human rights and global justice are major themes of academic and practitioner debate, both in Asia and beyond. Over the past twenty years, there has been a proliferation of ‘transitional justice’ mechanisms (primarily criminal tribunals and truth commissions) that have promised accountability for perpetrators and redress for victims. There has also been a vogue for the creation of human rights regimes featuring national and even regional rights commissions, which exist in a variety of relationships with non-state, ‘civil society’ groups, both national and transnational. Most of these mechanisms have focused on the level of the state and on state-related institutions in developing countries, often supported by intergovernmental organisations. Hopes have been expressed that such innovations will have a ‘trickle-down’ effect on local judicial institutions and practices, which are often problematic and inappropriate. Yet, the performance and impact of such mechanisms has been at best ambiguous and at times disappointing. Furthermore, these interventions have been critiqued for treating the symptoms rather than the causes of conflict. They frequently leave many crucial aspects of social or transformative justice unaddressed.

Underlying this global justice deficit is often a large gap in perception between those professionally engaged in the largely culture-blind transitional justice industry, and the wider local publics in whose name justice is carried out. Much of the ‘justice reform’ work conducted in this area is driven by those whose primary interest is in generalising global norms, rather than by scholars with a deeply nuanced understanding of the countries and issues on which they work. Examples of the resulting troublesome contradictions include:

· The nineteen year jail sentence handed down to former Khmer Rouge interrogation centre chief Kaing Guek Eav (aka Duch) in 2010 was hailed as a positive step by international lawyers, but most Cambodians were torn between the view that Duch should receive the same punishment as his victims (torture and violent death), and a belief that Duch would suffer an appropriate kharmic fate (such as being reborn as a cockroach). His sentence dramatically eroded the credibility and legitimacy of the hybrid Khmer Rouge Tribunal.

· In post-reformasi Indonesia since 1998, judges have faced a graduated tradition from acting servants of the authoritarian Suharto regime to the possibility of playing much more independent roles, leading to a wide divergence of internal cultures and practices.

· In Thailand, ‘invented traditions’ surrounding sacral understandings of monarchy co-exist uneasily with human rights and constitutional mechanisms brought in during the 1990s reform process, resulting in apparent anachronisms such as draconian lèse majesté laws. Judges are torn between loyalty to the throne and adherence to modern legal principles.

There is an urgent need for new interdisciplinary, intersectional and translocal work on justice that engages with the diversity of local meanings and processes of justice. .

To this end, Weatherhead East Asian Institute will host a two-day conference to bring together scholars and activists working at the intersections of justice, law, politics, culture and human rights in Southeast Asia.. The aim of the workshop will be to generate a landmark output – such as a book in the Studies of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute Columbia series – that will help change the landscape of debate on these issues, and can reach well beyond the core focus on Southeast Asia.

We are particularly interested in papers that problematize the ‘global’ and ‘local’ as separate and dichotomous spheres, and which suggest new ways of researching and theorizing the following:

· Human rights

· Judicial, transformative and/or gender justice

· Transitional justice

· Civil society and the place of victims in legal reform

· Comparative and regional perspectives on any of the above

Countries and cases will include, but will not be limited to

· Cambodia

· Thailand

· Vietnam

· Indonesia

A small amount of funding may be available to help with transportation and accommodation costs.

Please submit abstracts of around 250 words with a short bio to Duncan McCargo (d.j.mccargo@leeds.ac.uk) by 15 July 2011.

Return to top of page




	« Return to Conference and Announcement Localizing Global Justice: Rethinking Law and Human Rights in Southeast Asia Call for Papers Weatherhead East Asian Institute Columbia University, New York City November 4-5, 2011 Kristy Kelly (Columbia) and Duncan McCargo (Columbia/Leeds) Human rights and global justice are major themes of academic and practitioner debate, both in Asia and beyond. Over the past twenty years, there has been a proliferation of ‘transitional justice’ mechanisms (primarily criminal tribunals and truth commissions) that have promised accountability for perpetrators and redress for victims. There has also been a vogue for the creation of human rights regimes featuring national and even regional rights commissions, which exist in a variety of relationships with non-state, ‘civil society’ groups, both national and transnational. Most of these mechanisms have focused on the level of the state and on state-related institutions in developing countries, often supported by intergovernmental organisations. Hopes have been expressed that such innovations will have a ‘trickle-down’ effect on local judicial institutions and practices, which are often problematic and inappropriate. Yet, the performance and impact of such mechanisms has been at best ambiguous and at times disappointing. Furthermore, these interventions have been critiqued for treating the symptoms rather than the causes of conflict. They frequently leave many crucial aspects of social or transformative justice unaddressed. Underlying this global justice deficit is often a large gap in perception between those professionally engaged in the largely culture-blind transitional justice industry, and the wider local publics in whose name justice is carried out. Much of the ‘justice reform’ work conducted in this area is driven by those whose primary interest is in generalising global norms, rather than by scholars with a deeply nuanced understanding of the countries and issues on which they work. Examples of the resulting troublesome contradictions include: · The nineteen year jail sentence handed down to former Khmer Rouge interrogation centre chief Kaing Guek Eav (aka Duch) in 2010 was hailed as a positive step by international lawyers, but most Cambodians were torn between the view that Duch should receive the same punishment as his victims (torture and violent death), and a belief that Duch would suffer an appropriate kharmic fate (such as being reborn as a cockroach). His sentence dramatically eroded the credibility and legitimacy of the hybrid Khmer Rouge Tribunal. · In post-reformasi Indonesia since 1998, judges have faced a graduated tradition from acting servants of the authoritarian Suharto regime to the possibility of playing much more independent roles, leading to a wide divergence of internal cultures and practices. · In Thailand, ‘invented traditions’ surrounding sacral understandings of monarchy co-exist uneasily with human rights and constitutional mechanisms brought in during the 1990s reform process, resulting in apparent anachronisms such as draconian lèse majesté laws. Judges are torn between loyalty to the throne and adherence to modern legal principles. There is an urgent need for new interdisciplinary, intersectional and translocal work on justice that engages with the diversity of local meanings and processes of justice. . To this end, Weatherhead East Asian Institute will host a two-day conference to bring together scholars and activists working at the intersections of justice, law, politics, culture and human rights in Southeast Asia.. The aim of the workshop will be to generate a landmark output – such as a book in the Studies of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute Columbia series – that will help change the landscape of debate on these issues, and can reach well beyond the core focus on Southeast Asia. We are particularly interested in papers that problematize the ‘global’ and ‘local’ as separate and dichotomous spheres, and which suggest new ways of researching and theorizing the following: · Human rights · Judicial, transformative and/or gender justice · Transitional justice · Civil society and the place of victims in legal reform · Comparative and regional perspectives on any of the above Countries and cases will include, but will not be limited to · Cambodia · Thailand · Vietnam · Indonesia A small amount of funding may be available to help with transportation and accommodation costs. Please submit abstracts of around 250 words with a short bio to Duncan McCargo (d.j.mccargo@leeds.ac.uk) by 15 July 2011. Return to top of page