I am so grateful to your posts - I gave a quick glance but will go over slowly once I finish Meister - I am still reading so did not post sooner. Sorry.
1) One of the questions I had which I was holding off on writing relates to some of the questions raised on the relations/inextricability of victim and perpetrator and the other positions of bystander/complicity. The terms that become crucial: Culpability. Responsibility.
The articles bring up these positions and Ashis Nandy's article was so instructive because it allowed for an entry into the event. Pal was the only International lawyer on the tribunal and he was not. Pal's decision really fleshes out what the articles present.
2) Meister raises philosophical questions for me - forgiveness, justice, victory - these are also tied to psychological, sociological, political etc. How do we address these questions and keep in mind human rights as action or to be acted upon.
3) Meister uses the term "self-conscious ethical" while speaking of the version of the Rights of Man (Or Revolution) that contrasts in many ways (which he lists over the course of the book) to the present day Human Rights Discourse (which is also referred to as transitional justice in places). I am curious about the Rights of Man? Can we locate such a revolution so we understand what that really means or are we at present only able to situate it as whatever "transitional justice" is not.
4) I would really like to learn to talk about the ethical and the political. Meister writes, "The ethical condemnation of atrocity, if not always the atrocity itself, must here precede intervention, which then becomes an act of rescue - ethical and not (at least initially) political" (5). I get that he's centering the ethical in the Rights of Man (and human rights) prior to the new human rights. In many ways, what we are trying to reach is the ethical practice to forgiveness, justice, victory.
1) One of the questions I had which I was holding off on writing relates to some of the questions raised on the relations/inextricability of victim and perpetrator and the other positions of bystander/complicity. The terms that become crucial: Culpability. Responsibility.
The articles bring up these positions and Ashis Nandy's article was so instructive because it allowed for an entry into the event. Pal was the only International lawyer on the tribunal and he was not. Pal's decision really fleshes out what the articles present.
2) Meister raises philosophical questions for me - forgiveness, justice, victory - these are also tied to psychological, sociological, political etc. How do we address these questions and keep in mind human rights as action or to be acted upon.
3) Meister uses the term "self-conscious ethical" while speaking of the version of the Rights of Man (Or Revolution) that contrasts in many ways (which he lists over the course of the book) to the present day Human Rights Discourse (which is also referred to as transitional justice in places). I am curious about the Rights of Man? Can we locate such a revolution so we understand what that really means or are we at present only able to situate it as whatever "transitional justice" is not.
4) I would really like to learn to talk about the ethical and the political. Meister writes, "The ethical condemnation of atrocity, if not always the atrocity itself, must here precede intervention, which then becomes an act of rescue - ethical and not (at least initially) political" (5). I get that he's centering the ethical in the Rights of Man (and human rights) prior to the new human rights. In many ways, what we are trying to reach is the ethical practice to forgiveness, justice, victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment