CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 144War, Law, and JusticeInternational Law and Human RightsMemory, violence, and history

Coming to Terms with Atrocities: A Review of Accountability Mechanisms for Mass Violations of Human Rights

Kritz, Neil J.·1996·Law and Contemporary Problems
DOI 10.2307/1192195
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The field of human psychology has taught the lay world a principle regarding personal emotion that is now taken as a given: To ensure good mental health and stability, it is crucial that individuals emerging from massive abuse and trauma develop appropriate mechanisms to confront and process that past experience, facilitating closure rather than repression. Figuring out which approach or mechanism will be most helpful to the healing process will vary from person to person, and will be determined in part by the background and makeup of the particular individual as well as by the nature of the trauma endured. But, for both victims and perpetrators of past abuse, dealing with the reality and consequences of its occurrence is essential. In responding to such trauma, groups and nations tend to function similarly to individuals. Societies shattered by the perpetration of atrocities need to adapt or design mechanisms to confront their demons, to reckon with these past abuses. Otherwise, for nations, as for individuals, the past will haunt and infect the present and future in unpredictable ways. The assumption that individuals or groups who have been the victims of hideous atrocities will simply forget about them or expunge their feelings without some form of accounting, some semblance of justice, is to leave in place the seeds of future conflict.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1192195

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Trials can provide a sense that grievances have been addressed and can hopefully be put to rest, rather than smoldering in anticipation of the next round of conflict.

    “Trials can provide “a sense that…grievances have been addressed and can hopefully be put to rest, rather than smoldering in anticipation of the next round of conflict” (Kritz 1996, 128).”

    From Conflict Recurrence and Postconflict Justice: Addressing Motivations and Opportunities for Sustainable Peace (2017) · cites this paper as Kritz 1996

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kritz, N. J.
Corresponding author
Kritz, Neil J.
Venue
Law and Contemporary Problems
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1996
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
127
ISSN
0023-9186 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/1192195
OpenAlex
W1569480047
Cited by
144
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Law and Contemporary Problems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › War, Law, and Justice
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Law and Human Rights
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Memory, violence, and history
Keywords
accountability mechanisms, mass atrocities, human rights violations, transitional justice, truth commissions, reconciliation, trauma processing, victims and perpetrators, collective memory, post-conflict societies, future war

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review