Search

Argentina has been aptly defined as a 'global protagonist' in transitional justice (TJ), because of its pioneering innovations with accountability for past crimes (Sikkink, 2008). Conversely, Uruguay chose a path of amnesty and oblivion in coming to terms with its own past evils. This paper contends that three phases in TJ can be identified in Argentina and Uruguay. In the first, these countries adopted opposite approaches: Argentina established a truth commission and carried out prosecutions, while Uruguay selected oblivion and silence. The second phase saw Argentina and Uruguay's positions becoming increasingly aligned. Initially, both societies witnessed a silencing of any discussion on the dictatorship. Later on, by the late 1990s, they slowly began to warm up to questions of accountability. Only in the early 21st century, these issues forcefully returned to the social and political arenas. During this third and current phase, Argentina and Uruguay adopted similar stances, attempting to explore their pasts from the perspectives of truth, justice and memory. The progression among these phases is explained with reference to several factors, including Presidential leaderships; the attitude of the armed forces; the role of human rights activists; and finally, developments on the international stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on regime oscillation between authoritarianism and democracy. I argue that, both Turkey and Argentina during the post-WWII era constitute cases of regime oscillation, however, they have divergent patterns of oscillation. In Turkey, be ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout the 1970s and 80s, many countries transitioned from military rule to democracy. These military regimes were often responsible for serious violations of human rights including kidnapping, rape, torture, and execution. Once the democratic transition began, the new civilian government faced a difficult choice: prosecute and risk upsetting the transition or move on and provide immunity for the military leaders. In Argentina, after initial efforts to prosecute the military, the new government under Raul Alfonsín backed off in an effort to limit the scope of its prosecutions. After several military rebellions, the government stopped all judicial proceedings and in 1990, Argentine President Carlos Menem pardoned the members of the military regime.In Chile, General Pinochet ensured his departure would not expose himself to prosecution by remaining head of the armed forces until 1997. Subsequently, he and other members of the military government became senators for life, a title that brought an exemption from prosecution. Thus, in both Argentina and Chile, while truth commissions endeavored to chronicle the past, almost no one from the military regime appeared likely to pay for their crimes. Despite the apparent finality of judicial proceedings in these two countries, the desire to bring the perpetrators to justice remained. In Chile, Pinochet?s indictment while in the United Kingdom sparked a legal battle that holds out hope for bringing him and others to justice. In Argentina, the efforts of President Nestor Kirchner and the Argentine legislature have also opened the door for renewed efforts to prosecute surviving members of the junta, over ten years after the matter seemingly had ended.Several questions are evident that will be the focus of this paper. Why has the desire to hold these leaders accountable remained despite the passing of several years and a multitude of obstacles? What are the key factors that rekindled these efforts and why now? What lessons can be learned for others to hold leaders accountable for human rights abuses? ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]