Inconvenient Justice: The Struggle to "Close the Books" in Afghanistan and Nepal

Aladin Research Commons

Inconvenient Justice: The Struggle to "Close the Books" in Afghanistan and Nepal

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Mertus, Julie en_US
dc.contributor.author Sajjad, Tazreena en_US
dc.contributor.other Abu-Nimer, Mohammed en_US
dc.contributor.other Gallaher, Carolyn en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2012-08-22T15:01:29Z
dc.date.available 2012-08-22T15:01:29Z
dc.date.created 2011 en_US
dc.date.issued 2012-08-22
dc.identifier.other Sajjad_american_0008E_10119 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1961/11107
dc.description Degree awarded: Ph.D. School of International Service. American University en_US
dc.description.abstract <bold>INCONVENIENT JUSTICE: THE STRUGGLE TO "CLOSE THE BOOKS" IN AFGHANISTAN AND NEPAL<bold> <bold>BY<bold>Tazreena Sajjad <bold>ABSTRACT<bold>Inconvenient Justice argues for a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic "local" that goes beyond the realm of a cultural framework. Correspondingly, it suggests that conceptualization of the "local" needs to be problematized further to expose the tensions and hierarchies of and within the local, and to question whose version of the local is actually prioritized in transitional justice programming. Specifically it asserts that the local must be understood as an inter-subjective concept and that the "local" in transitional justice should be seen as a dynamic, evolving phenomenon. This research examines five specific areas, which it insists, are critical components defining the local: (i) the historical context within which "transitional justice" mechanisms are implemented; (ii) the limitations of, and opportunities for, local legal systems to engage with transitional justice questions; (iii) the internal/domestic and international politicking around the "transitional justice" discourse; iv) the importance of centrally placing the local to define justice; and, (v) as an illustration of the domestic struggle for long-term justice, the role of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) which link local voices to national and international platforms of decision-making and balance their role of advocating for human rights, while looking into past instances of abuses. Using a comparative case study approach, this research draws on one hundred and fifteen in-depth interviews conducted with international and national organizations, policy-makers, government officials, journalists, experts, and victims' groups in Kabul, Kathmandu, Washington D.C., and New York. It also incorporates participant observation, narrative research and analyses of reports, correspondence, press releases, agreements, bills, official texts, newspaper articles and petitions to provide an in-depth understanding of the complexities of the justice question in both these contexts. en_US
dc.format.extent 458 p. en_US
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf en_US
dc.publisher American University en_US
dc.subject International relations en_US
dc.subject Peace studies en_US
dc.subject Political Science en_US
dc.subject.other Afghanistan en_US
dc.subject.other human rights en_US
dc.subject.other national human rights commissions en_US
dc.subject.other Nepal en_US
dc.subject.other rule of law en_US
dc.subject.other transitional justice en_US
dc.title Inconvenient Justice: The Struggle to "Close the Books" in Afghanistan and Nepal en_US
dc.type Text en_US
dc.type Dissertation en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View
Sajjad_american_0008E_10119display.pdf 1.643Mb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics