Justice In An Unjust World By Ruti Teitel

Justice in an Unjust World

Genocide in Rwandan, a refugee crisis in Syria, and civil war in Yemen. These are just a few of countless injustices throughout the world. It appears that our global society has no problem creating injustice, but by examining the responses to these injustices, it is evident that we have significant difficulty achieving reconciliation and assigning culpability after the fact. This complicated task, “transitional justice,” has been extensively studied by Ruti Teitel. Teitel explains that transitional justice in our current worldwide stage of globalization has shifted to “steady-state justice”, focusing on “non-state actors” associated with globalization instead of “state-centric” obligations, and maintaining “peace

each person), community (i.e. towns such as Ndora in Rwanda), and international (i.e. large NGOs and other institutions such as the United Nations). Without this distinction, Teitel’s paradigm allows the reader to decide for themselves the effectiveness of each tier of “non-state actor.” Her emphasis on globalization often results in the international tier to be interpreted as more important. However, with the tier distinction, Tietel can express the importance of the community tier without dismissing the impact of the international tier. In this paper, I examine the impact of Teitel’s omission of the nuances of “non-state actors” on the effectiveness of transitional justice. The stark differences between the effectiveness of these tiers can best be seen in the gacaca courts in Rwanda. After the Rwandan genocide, the government created these courts as a part of their “decentralized development” initiative to achieve nationwide social repair (Doughty 420). These courts are an exceptional example of the effectiveness of the community tier of “non-state actors.” I argue, that this community tier of “non-state actors” is the most effective of the three, because it allows for community based direct action, micro-politics of reconciliation, and accounts for local

Direct action was prevalent in Doughty’s recollection of the Rwandan gacaca courts. In fact, in Rwanda their valuation of direct action is so immense that all “business, farming, and transport halted” to give the entire community the opportunity to attend the gacaca courts, which consisted of “locally elected judges” (Doughty 420). In fact, attendance was mandatory to allow everyone to actively participate and be a “witness, prosecutor, and defender” (Doughty 420). So, every single person in the community had an opportunity to be part of the court system; they could all play a direct role in the social repair. Allowing millions of people to have a direct role in the country’s social repair, is only possible at the community level. The community level divides the population into small manageable chunks (communities) that can each run their own gacaca courts in their town square. It’s impossible at international level due to the logistical problems of calling in everyone in Rwanda to testify at a NGO. So, only a select few speak for the many, leaving the many dissatisfied with their role in their own reconciliation. Clearly, direct action is a crucial part of social repair and is only possible at the community level. However, in Teitel’s current paradigm, the impact of direct action is understated, because her