Reparations as balance

Reparations are often justified as a means to ensure “peace,” “reconciliation,” or “vindicate victims” (Bottigliero, 2004, 14; Greiff, 2006, 463–466; Laplante, 2015, 555–557). The justification of reparations range from corrective justice notions restitutio in integrum (returning all that is lost) moral recognition and relational restoration, even communitarian engendering civic trust, social cohesion transformative explanations the place post-conflict societies. can seem almost Janus-faced, allowing broad umbrella conceptions expectations co-exist, but it worth interrogating justifications reparations, help “serve clarify nature full extent our normative commitments” (Greiff, 2012, 33). This article analyses some main for so challenge their assumptions redressing past. discussion focuses on three predominate concepts namely justice, morality/recognition reconciliation/relational justifications. These accounts do not fully reflect practice mass atrocities, which creates account either too utopian be realized inadequately provides conceptual tools navigate challenges realize effective reparations. Indeed more critical scholars working these issues point “rough” “imperfect” (Eizenstat, 2003), provide coherent what this theoretically amounts to. Instead author proposes reparation balance such measures part negotiated process. Reparation involves relevant stakeholders finding common ground redress past prevent its non-recurrence future. referred “goldilocks' zone” wherein conceived space conflicting perspective find harmony through spectrum measures. Such position does repair victims' harm required by integrum, also compromise society's values nor humiliating those responsible. approach envisages simply victim-centered measure remedy harm, responsible actors rehabilitate own present future actions. “Reparations balance” informed many contemporary struggles victims, an understanding has succeeded practice. Justice invoked key given use mediating disputes amongst parties. Indeed, other theoretical interpreted light form whether restorative with reconciliation, transitional justice. As starting Aristotle two forms face injustice inequality: rectificatory; distributive. With first these, rectificatory regulates transactions (such contracts) clandestine affairs (crimes) between individuals. Corrective about party trying “rectify” (Shelton, 2005, 291) “restore prior condition wronged nearly possible wiping out consequences wrong” (Walker, 239). For was mathematical formula judge restore equality parties, subtracting victim's loss offender's gain. may insufficient understood practiced atrocities. Returning victims original them situation inequality, caused victimization, they severely injured dead (Rombouts & Parmentier, 2009). Some commentators have tried nuance consequences, fairness equity parties moving forward. Murphy (2017, 96) suggests aims “to interactions manifest certain level respect others, and, when wrongful losses gains occur, rights claims at stake dealt justly.” Lu 33) considers “interactional justice,” “settling agents conduct unjust interactions, undeserved harms injuries arising interactions.” (2009, 34) interactional only gets us far injustice. Instead, requires engage structural inequalities “not acts structures processes interaction, embodied ‘institutions, discourses, practices’.” (ibid., 36) “structural concerned “moral qualities positions produced political mediate organize agents” activities relations [and expanding] field bear responsibility damages resulting catastrophes. While legal interactional, finds necessarily “parasitic comprehensive terms agents' interactions” 224). concerns reflected Kutz (2004, 302), who individualistic “wrong” framework considering ultimately reparations' baseline should addressing In contrast, Walker points baseline”, ideal. her morally adequate establishing “right relationship” realized, rather than intervene episodically correct deviations existing standard.”1 debates different claims, atrocities historical Importantly balance, stipulates owed, whom, explaining absence occur. Other theorists proposed distributive resonates Lu's Uprimny (2009) distinguishes one forward-looking corrective, aiming tackling violations, inequality discrimination, would continue unabated Matsuda (1987) argues inherently empower made powerless violence powerful, forcing confront wrongdoing vindicate victimized. elements articulate how take prospective look improving situation, completely involved implementing them. Transitional involving politically aftermath attuned being “political project” reconstituting trust community victimized 453–454). De Greiff (2012, 59) (2020, 55) suggest efforts after “principled application distinct circumstances” “principle compromise.” However, shaped principles, compromises, striking looks like. Given shortcomings responding standard strived towards, reflects fluid morality. Moral agency played strong wrongdoer acknowledge victim.2 acknowledgement forces transgressors recognize harmed having equal dignity (Boxhill, 1972, 118). Philpott (2015, 346) “confer thus wound ignorance … [through] acknowledgment fortified materially” share tenets religions Islam, Judaism, Christianity, restoring right relationships reconciliation. philosophers must correspond “social wrongdoing” (Radzik, 2009, 199). 112) vulnerability,” sense impunity enables environment where dismissed degraded “full participants reciprocal accountability” relations. failure State allow compound marginalization society diminish trust. According (ibid. 118), play important role remedying vulnerability paying attention victim requiring publicly make good wrong. broadly connects arguments Verdeja (2008, 220) status parity recognition, acknowledging suffering shifting recognizing holders citizens. express receiving goods, services benefits condemnation 217; Walker, 117). Morality alternative source power claims-making demands where, conflict, dynamics legally accessing (Kutz, 284). A perpetrator repairing apologizing cause, signal entitlements, lowering superiority committing crime, thereby setting groundwork equitable relationship (Hampton, 1992, 1698). We could situate within economy making around wrongfulness used exchange against passage time changing attitudes greater weight outset rejected, years later considered acceptable, WWII Japanese-American internees secured 1988 (Barkan, 2000, 329). belie complexity victimhood transitions commodity leverage change, others third exploit increased service provision. raise difficult choices speaking demanding injury loved one, transform personal connection becoming public administrative process, quantified amount slotted into judicial evidential requirements court case. There risks producing “market morals” evidence suffered most eligible prioritized, competition transfiguring (Goschler, 2017, 4). quandary exchanging pain benefits, creating hierarchy seen deserving suffer (Ross Reynolds, 107). Of course, compass. violation(s) put back wall nowhere lower sink. At same time, demand support well counter suffering. Others reject withheld, Korean “Comfort Women” Japan's overtures assistance (Shin, 2016). self-exclude themselves avoid taint accepting compromised sullying death equating beneficiaries. issue groups “innocent” Northern Ireland pension seriously paramilitaries were going included (Moffett, while polemic, negotiation acceptance compensation Germany Holocaust just, provided allowed wrongdoers acknowledged (Taylor, 2007). “a matter appropriately acting we know perceive wrongs. It extending concern due virtue are-wounded society. If, commonly thought, giving due, then kind quite easily elaboration maxim, responds denied rights, consideration, appropriate person enjoy.” “expressive function” providing “symbolic expression guilt regret” lead “dignity full-fledged, citizens” 728–730). cannot “turn clock back” Fisher two-fold function “counteracting suffered” communicative symbolically 325). similar vein Stahn 1) exploring expressive dimension law speaks “it act communication, is, process transferring meaning”. him single act, “message” says “something cares owed them” 354–355). beyond symbolic meaning, affect “make experience” 366), meaning struggle treated leading therapeutic healing (Danieli, 2020, 54). encouraged, gifts wrongdoers, hard-fought vindication person's experience inherent value person, relation found development, itself (Fisher, 342). Dixon 326-327) “recognition entails interpreting, representing rendering visible (and invisible) categories people” “an authoritative recognition” especially process.” Claims bound up moral, political, causes friction redress. Doxtader 138) suggests, events reveal tensions people claim say willing do. Thus, offer less outright agreement dispute (re)make socio-political norms.” morality during conflict. actor downplayed remorseful emphasis state victim. risk conceptualization leaves boundaries somewhat monochromatic, bad perpetrators, little complex child soldiers, tortured terrorists arms neglects vivid picture acquiescence institutions occur addressed sooner. second criticism perpetrators “cannot undo any murder,” “merely possessions, money new opportunities. doesn't [nor] equality” (Thompson, 2002, 48). all, insight why sometimes implemented, wrangling plural regards violations inhibit delivery. Thompson (ibid, 49) concludes if reconciliation looking co-existing re-establishing perpetrators. Reconciliation developing “individual, interpersonal, socio-political, institutional levels” been ruptured and/or (Seils, 2017). one-off event, continuous “constant readiness” recurrence (Huyse, 2003, 19). Beyond dialogue affected (Doxtader, 122–123). break cycle “promote peaceful coexistence,” effort (Vandeginste, 147–148). “thin” “thick” terms. thin conception “non-violent co-existence” “little feelings” (Govier, 13) no respect, shared values” Whereas thick “restoration dignity, reversing bearers (ibid.). exist both conceptions, reflecting context shaped, implications effectiveness appropriateness 162). Much notion construed wider gave rise armed conflicts 6). Mass victimization breakdown individuals, economic, victims. involve “fractured citizens, lack feelings alienation self-respect members historically group, economic hardship opportunities” (Kumar, 2014, 198). offering solution record past, behavior (Minow, 1998, 91). Mégret views individuals rest (2014, 186). intended encompass accountability reciprocity, closure return quo. way move forward together 220). engagement solidarity inclusion polity. empathy ourselves shoes 464; Radzik, satisfaction victim, whereas focusses reconciled re-established least prepared live co-existence 47). Accordingly, reconciliatory future, comparison focus shape expiate caused. associated protracted weaves web responsibility, everyday occurrence actors, times fixed identity. Even reference link “relationship” perhaps over states afterwards. relationship, conflict reductive. unclear convoluted war, leaving faceless. concepts, 117) “makes promise keep”. apparent keep repair. Suffering profound impossible, gestures modestly contribute conducive build 12–15). Minow (1998, 106) “provide specific, narrow invitation survivors walk vengeance forgiveness. ultimate quality depends ability among bystanders, perpetrators.” way, “slate wiped clean; done” 104). Thus convey communicate atonement key, emphasizing interwoven thicker possibility challenged contestation resources best spent reconstruction rebuild communities, close Moreover, “compromised” emerge end hostilities victor-loser sharing settlement (Firchow MacGinty, 2013, 234). want perpetrator(s) standing (Satz, 137). reduce exacerbate anger, frustration, humiliation opportunity (Petersen Zukerman Daly, 2010, 272). advocates argue forgiveness assists reintegration enable “avoid self-destructive effects holding pain, grudges, victimhood” create relations, grieve 14–15). work examined actually change force fix identity benefits. Radzik components Perpetrators improve become trustworthy, wrong, finally 85–86). Compensation circumstances proportionate suffered, gesture costs them, denotes 98–99). such, needs effected words, wrong committed acts”, (Martin-Baro, 1995, 570). wish establish, powerful symbol regret, renewed 190). Accordingly material transforming perpetrator, community. sees transformation, nominal acknowledgements, reduced temporary insignificance, substantive tackle (Murphy, 114–121). transformation reciprocity 2010). Murphy, rule facilitate structure 121–124). Procedural instructive here “accepting basic norms negotiation, contestation, decision suspending broader redistribution punishment” (Verdeja, 2008, 13). That said, legal, individual, limited 179), complemented formal informal deal modest small societal secondary goal harm. give complete attempt order equalize root causes, overburden caused; injustices completed effaced returned quo ante (original before violation) leave vulnerable repeated violations. principles guide like, shaping outcomes. theories underscore importance expressing vindicating experience, particular innocence underserved important, non-deserving guilty recognition. accounts, focused stakeholders, medium amends actions normalize scale makes individual organizational difficult, strained, numerous obliterating humanity Moreover sustained allies ongoing static invocation garner rights-discourse litigate advocate equilibrium violence, each resonate values, actors' (whether not) created gives obligatory social), limits law. substance violence. Having pluralistic implement avenues law, claims-making, promoting peacebuilding. Moderating forgo ful