News
New book on Constitutions and Transitional Justice!
“Constitutionalizing Transitional Justice - How Constitutions and Constitutional Courts Deal with Past Atrocity”
This book explores the complicated relationship between constitutions and transitional justice. It brings together scholars and practitioners from different countries to analyze the indispensable role of constitutions and constitutional courts in the process of overcoming political injustice of the past.
Issues raised in the book include the role of a new constitution for the successful practice of transitional justice after democratization, revolution or civil war, and the difficulties faced by the court while dealing with mass human rights infringements with limited legal tools.
The work also examines whether constitutionalizing transitional justice is a better strategy for new democracies in response to political injustice from the past. It further addresses the complex issue of backslides of democracy and consequences of constitutionalizing transitional justice.
The group of international authors address the interplay of the constitution/court and transitional justice in their native countries, along with theoretical underpinnings of the success or unfulfilled promises of transitional justice from a comparative perspective. The book will be a valuable resource for academics, researchers and policy-makers working in the areas of Transitional Justice, Comparative Constitutional Law, Human Rights Studies, International Criminal Law, Genocide Studies, Law and Politics, and Legal History.
Read more about the book here!
Published: 14.11.2022
Link to this page
A Union or, rather, a Dis-Union of Nations?
Research group member Artem Galushko has contributed a chapter to the anthology
"State-Building, Rule of Law, Good Governance and Human Rights in Post-Soviet Space".
A hierarchy of “titular nations” and other informal Soviet practices have a threefold influence on the current situation with human rights in the former USSR.
First, although constitutions of newly independent post-Soviet states guarantee formal rights protection of various minority groups in accordance with international human rights instruments, these provisions often remain inoperable.
Second, Russian communities that played an unofficial role of the Soviet primary titular nation complain that they lost their privileged status in the post-Soviet states. This, in turn, leads to conflicting interpretations of international law and human rights by the “kin state,” Russia, and those post-Soviet states, where “kinsmen” of Russia comprise a significant proportion of the population.
Third, the old Soviet legacies of national enclaves and politicized ethnicity remain a source of inter-ethnic hostilities and conflict in the region.
Published: 12.11.2022
Link to this page
