Introduction: Construing Reconciliation as a Legal Principle
Reconciliation between national groups and States following divisive historical events, such as in particular conflicts, is most of the times a difficult and painful process. Conflicting narratives may become entrenched and the passing of time may
Since the end of the Cold War, more and more specialists in history, philosophy, psychology, and other social sciences pay attention to what is designated as “probably the most important condition” for maintaining a stable peace: reconciliation between former enemies (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2000 : 237
Reconciliation literally means repairing the damaged or broken bonds of unity and friendship between God and humanity and between human beings and their fellow beings on a personal and also on a communal level. In the words of Charles Villa-Vicencio, reconciliation does not
grievances by prioritizing political and economic change (Huyse, 2003 ). 1 While these structural changes have played an important role in consolidating Aceh’s post-disaster transition, a key piece of the puzzle has been neglected.
Reconciliation, or a focus on intergroup relations, has so far received
Reconciliation Commission in South Africa (TRC), the official organization that was mandated to promote national unity by seeking truth about the apartheid regime from a broad range of citizens. Thus, this article explores the possible function of reconciliation policy to promote social cohesion, focusing on
While the Truth and Reconciliation Commission ( trc ) is a historically and politically important (as will be discussed later in this piece) the case of Dalhousie’s rj effort stands as a contemporary example of how sentimentalisation can become a serious problem. Sentimentalising certain