Transitional Justice: General Argument Defended in McEvoy and Mallinder

Student’s Name：
Instructor:
Course:
Transitional Justice
Introduction
The world battles massive human rights violations, including genocide, and war crimes, among others. Recently, for example, apart from the displacement, the Russian invasion in Ukraine resulted in civilian deaths. More often, there are perpetrators, and the post-conflict justice system adopts various techniques, including amnesty and retribution, primarily to deter such cases. McEvoy and Mallinder’s “Amnesties in transition: Punishment, restoration, and the governance of mercy” discusses the prevalence of amnesties, especially in post-conflict transitional justice. However, amnesties are often criticized because of the injustice and lack of accountability that violators enjoy at the expense of the victims. Collectively, the primary claim in the article by McEvoy and Mallinder revolves around the reliance on amnesties as a post-conflict transitional justice technique that guarantees restoration, including peacemaking, reconciliation, and recovery, among other goals.
Part 1: General Argument Defended in McEvoy and Mallinder
According to McEvoy and Mallinder, amnesties will prevail in post-conflict transitional justice since the world lacks a universal prosecution duty in international law. In other words, international justice is less likely to challenge amnesties because of the lack of punishment rationale. The authors assert that amnesties should be considered influential post-conflict transitional justice rather than prioritize the argument that it champions impunity. The article defines amnesties “as the process by which states exercise their sovereign right to mercy by extinguishing criminal or civil liability for past crimes (McEvoy and Mallinder 413). The process includes avoiding prosecutions even though crimes were clearly committed. It should be adopted to ensure stability and peace. The authors introduce their article by citing the introduction of amnesty by the US president, Jimmy Carter. In 1977, Carter pardoned the US citizens who had unlawfully evaded drafting during the Vietnam War. He argued that it was important to show mercy, which would, in turn, facilitate the objectives of moving forward and ultimately overcoming the divisive conflict and the wounds it inflicted on the country.
The authors allude that violent conflict has adverse impacts, and the decisions the societies embrace in attempts to move on can be beneficial or detrimental. In the process, the prevalence of retributive justice decreases as the victims are encouraged to disregard punishment in favor of mercy. The goal is to achieve a wider collective objective or a greater good, which McEvoy and Mallinder indicate is primarily the argument behind amnesties (411). They indicate that in some instances, especially in ethnic and political violence, the desire to substitute amnesty as a form of impunity signals a lack of accountability with punishment or retributive justice. The authors discuss the primary themes, including restoration, retribution, and deterrence, that is the primary focus after a violent conflict. They are convinced that to achieve considerable peace; the system should embrace mercy, which is sublime for amnesty. Unlike retr...