Abstract

The horrific violations committed in South Sudan’s civil war led to the establishment of mechanisms ensuring the prosecution of serious crimes and reconciliation within communities shattered by war. Through a peace deal, three mutually supportive but independent institutions of transitional justice were formed: The Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing, The Hybrid Court for South Sudan and The Compensation and Reparation Authority. This article examines the extent to which these mechanisms can achieve their respective aims, and argues that prosecutions need to be implemented in an integrated manner alongside reconciliation and healing because of the massive scale of abuses and enormous number of perpetrators. The article further contends that their collaboration with local, indigenous justice mechanisms is crucial because of the latter’s extensive experience in facilitating accountability and reconciliation within divided communities in South Sudan. The article concludes that whilst a limited amnesty is inevitable, a blanket amnesty is counterproductive to the aims of transitional justice in post-conflict South Sudan. Further, the article cautions against the use of immunity, arguing that this would deny justice to victims and could lead to a rise in revenge or private retribution, lawlessness and impunity.

中文翻译：

---

重新思考南苏丹的过渡司法：关于正义与和解的批判观点

摘要

南苏丹内战中发生的可怕的侵权行为导致建立了确保起诉严重罪行和在受战争破坏的社区内和解的机制。通过和平协议，成立了三个相互支持但相互独立的过渡时期司法机构：真相，和解与治疗委员会，南苏丹混合法院和赔偿与赔偿局。本文研究了这些机制可以在多大程度上实现其各自的目标，并指出，由于大规模的滥用行为和大量的肇事者，起诉必须与和解与康复一起以综合方式实施。文章进一步主张，他们与当地，土著司法机制至关重要，因为后者在促进南苏丹分裂社区内部的问责制与和解方面拥有丰富的经验。这篇文章的结论是，尽管有限的大赦是不可避免的，但全面大赦却不利于冲突后南苏丹过渡时期司法的目标。此外，该条告诫不要使用豁免权，理由是这将剥夺受害者的正义，并可能导致报仇或私人报复，违法行为和有罪不罚的现象增加。