ABSTRACT
The ‘desire for justice’ is an expression commonly used to describe the demand for redress made by victims of violence within ‘post-conflict’ transition. My argument in this article is that more attention must be paid to understanding
The ‘desire for justice’ is an expression co only used to describe the de and for redress ade by victi s of violence ithin ‘post-conflict’ transition. y argu ent in this article is that ore at ention ust be paid to understanding
HISTORICAL JUSTICE
the subjective and psychic aspects of this desire for justice, as these articulate with the politics of memory, discourses of victimhood and questions of recognition, reparation and reconciliation. The article explores how psychic and emotional currents percolate into public discourse and politics, affecting representation of and by victims and the ways in which others relate themselves to victims’ expressed desires for justice. It focuses on the Irish peace process since the establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland in 2008, a period characterised by stalled efforts towards engagement with the historical legacies of the conflict. As Smyth (2007, 12-14) and Hamber (2009, 221-222) have argued, contradictions arise in post-conflict society between the wish to secure forward-looking political arrangements based on negotiated compromises and the desire for justice (including retributive justice) that is often felt to be urgent, paramount and non-negotiable. These contradictions are especially acute for the victims of violence who, confronted by amnesty and other arrangements designed to draw perpetrators into a negotiated political settlement, may be forced to choose between the pursuit of justice and the securing of a peace settlement or the securing of information about the death of a loved one. According to Smyth (2007) and Hamber (2009), contradictions are likely to open up between the justice that is emotionally desired or felt to be psychically necessary, and what is realistically attainable in the world of political expediency, legal procedures and the loss and degradation of evidence. How, in the light of these contradictions, are we to think about, understand and relate to victims’ desire for justice?
