Journal Articles by Zinaida Miller
Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2021
Resurgent debates in U.S. law and politics over reparations and racialized inequality reflect wha... more Resurgent debates in U.S. law and politics over reparations and racialized inequality reflect what this Article argues is a significant transnational legal phenomenon: courts, policymakers, and social justice advocates mobilizing pasts of racial and ethnic violence and dispossession to justify competing rules for the distribution of resources and power today. In the United States., South Africa, Canada, and Israel/Palestine, significant legal and political battles revolve around the relationships among past, present, and future. Judges and advocates identify progress from or rupture with the past; embrace or reject institutions intended to record and resolve past events; and attempt to silence or center past violence when interpreting rights in the present. In the U.S., arguments about whether and how slavery is relevant to contemporary racialized inequalities arise in litigation around affirmative action and reparations. These debates contest not the horror of that past but rather its linkage with the beneficiaries of racial privilege today given the passage of time and the formal legal end of slavery and segregation. In South Africa, a critical fault line has emerged between those who view the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the post-1994 Constitution, and Constitutional Court judgments as representative of a flawed but foundational break with the atrocious past and those who assert that today’s radical, racialized inequalities derive from legal and constitutional continuities with the colonial and apartheid pasts. In Canada, recent public debates over the legal definition of genocide revealed tensions over the distribution of resources and power between Indigenous and settler Canadians. The question of whether genocide ended or continues represents a fundamental contest over the material consequences of colonialism in the present. The final case study examines the evasion of the past in the Oslo Accords and its subsequent effects on the structure of Israeli-Palestinian relations. While the predominant argument held that engaging the past would only provoke further conflict, activists and advocates countered that the radically unequal distribution of territory, population, and power in the present can be understood only in relation to past violence and dispossession. Together, the case studies reveal the material stakes of legal and political assertions of the resolution, distance, reproduction, legacy, afterlives, or erasure of racialized violence and dispossession.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
International Criminal Law Review, 2021
This article describes the ways in which transitional justice work has helped constitute a predom... more This article describes the ways in which transitional justice work has helped constitute a predominant narrative about time in relation to violence, memory, and judgment. It suggests that transitional justice practices, institutions and discourses have coalesced into a form of 'temporal governance' , which privileges a limited conception of the relationship between time and justice. Temporal governance posits linear progress narratives premised on ruptures between past and present and distinguishes traumatic, proximate pasts available for justice from more distant, irretrievable ones. These features potentially lead not only to less robust versions of the past but to more anaemic visions for the present and future. In the process, transitional justice practices may also marginalise accounts of multiple and plural temporalities. The article also discusses contemporary movements that attempt to defy the predominant form of temporal governance, particularly those focused on both the historic harms and continuing violence of colonialism, settler-colonialism, and slavery. These movements also reveal the difficulties of challenging temporal assumptions about intergenerational and structural harm, benefit, and responsibility. Precisely because the past is so central to contemporary struggles for justice, it is all the more important to scrutinise which past is centred, who defines it, and how it is remembered, judged, recognised, and mourned.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Transnational Legal Theory, 2020
This article argues that fundamental critiques of the transitional justice enterprise paradoxical... more This article argues that fundamental critiques of the transitional justice enterprise paradoxically ended up stabilising it through a mode, style, and experience of (un)governing that I call 'embedded ambivalence'. Transitional justice has come to be characterised by certainty about its objectives (justice, peace, truth, reconciliation), but also by increasing uneasiness about the efficacy or benefits of its forms (transnational solutions, criminal law, state-based truth inquiries). The enterprise was built on the foundation of transnational and experiential comparison and commensurability, making it possible to incrementally expand the scope, institutions, and modes of regulation as a response to important critiques. Challenges remain, however. While self-critical expansion can improve the enterprise, it can also facilitate the evasion of foundational challenges. Repeated expansion raises questions about how and where to delimit the enterprise. Recent debates over the capacity of transitional justice to incorporate decolonial approaches or a praxis of solidarity highlight these tensions.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
As How Everything Became War describes, the methods and practices of contemporary violence have g... more As How Everything Became War describes, the methods and practices of contemporary violence have gradually eroded traditional legal and political distinctions between war and peace. Classifying a particular time and space as war, peace, or something in between defines the universe of permissible harms, relevant victims, and appropriate experts. It also has ramifications for governance: Who governs the war or the peace when so little separates the two? This article explores this question through two lenses: time and judgment. It first describes the ways in which temporality frames conflict and violence. The article then examines how decisions about the applicability of war or peace paradigms are equally choices about allocating authority, responsibility, and judgment.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2013
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2008
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
It no longer seems revolutionary to say, as Duncan Kennedy did over twenty years ago, that “Law s... more It no longer seems revolutionary to say, as Duncan Kennedy did over twenty years ago, that “Law schools are intensely political places.”1 As Kennedy himself argues in this issue of Unbound, today’s law professors “have correctly and honestly internalized the irreducible political element in law,” and accordingly law faculties feature a rich pluralism of overlapping and conflicting methodologies, political positions, and legal-theoretical commitments. But has this pedagogical shift done much to make these three years a less alienating or painful experience? We’re not so sure. Law school still trains us to see ourselves as technicians rather than agents; operatives rather than entrepreneurs; managers rather than provocateurs. Many students who arrive with visions of using the law as a tool for social transformation become quickly disillusioned and pessimistic about the possibilities for change, eventually leaving with a diminished sense of agency and an undefined sense of loss for ide...
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Book Reviews by Zinaida Miller
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Book Chapters by Zinaida Miller
The Oxford Handbook of Transitional Justice, 2023
This chapter argues that notions of time and temporality are central to the study and practice of... more This chapter argues that notions of time and temporality are central to the study and practice of transitional justice. The first part of the chapter, “The Times of Transitional Justice,” explores the vying origin points and histories of the field of transitional justice. It contends that both the methodological focus and starting point of an historical study influences how flexible and inclusive the transitional justice field appears to be in contemporary context. The second section, “Time in Transitional Justice,” analyzes the ways in which transitional justice institutions and scholars shape perceptions of the past and ideas about mourning, grief, and reconstruction. It argues that transitional justice practices often promote a vision of justice for harms committed in a relatively recent past that has been—or soon will be—successfully overcome. In doing so, they may make it more difficult to account not only for continuing harm and inequality but for complex, contested pasts. The final section traces the continuities between colonial temporalities enforced through violence and the temporality embedded in contemporary transitional justice by tracing two sets of challenges to mainstream accounts of time in transitional justice: counter-histories (which define the material and ideological stakes of different historical choices) and counter-practices (which contrast assumed singular or linear modes of mourning and memory with Indigenous, postcolonial, and pluralist conceptions). By assessing time from multiple perspectives, the chapter calls for closer attention to the ways in which justice institutions may unwittingly reinforce rather than transform past and present forms of temporal domination.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Anti-Impunity and the Human Rights Agenda, 2016
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
International Law and Transitional Governance: Critical Perspectives, 2020
When does a transition end? Does a static set of rules determine the end or does a contextual ana... more When does a transition end? Does a static set of rules determine the end or does a contextual analysis govern the choice of applicable rules? What changes in
political and economic power, governance, and law signal the commencement or completion of transition? Is transition an objective classification based on empirical characteristics or a political decision based on subjective determinants and contextual distributions of power? This chapter argues that the determination of an end to a transitional or post-conflict stage is itself embedded in a series of debates about the nature of
and need for such a stage at all. Those ideas build on and intertwine with a series of legal and policy practices of external rule, international intervention, and accountability that share certain assumptions, and sometimes common deformations. To govern the transition means more than an administrative title or an official grant of public power. Governance begins with classification: territories become transitional once they are so labeled. Once categorized, a vast number of multiple, competing, decentralized, disparate actors become involved in the distribution and receipt of financial, legal, and human resources. As a result,
determining the end of a transitional or post-conflict era requires understanding the import of the classification itself as well as the role of multiple actors who
engage in this particular type of rulership with significant effects on individuals and institutions. Moreover, it requires striking a balance between the desire to
replicate past successes through the creation of blueprints for governance – which can lead to underestimating the importance of context – and an exaggerated attention to the local that obscures outside contributions to conflict, inequity, and disarray. This chapter examines the possibility of an “end” to transition by inquiring into the “ends” of transition.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Stabilising the Contemporary Middle East and North Africa: Regional Actors and New Approaches, 2019
This chapter identifies ways in which transitional justice in the post-2011 Middle East and North... more This chapter identifies ways in which transitional justice in the post-2011 Middle East and North Africa has affected stability, shaped change and allocated power. Using examples drawn from Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, the chapter focuses on the conditions of transition, the choice of justice practices, the treatment of economic harms and the relationship between time and justice. In doing so, it argues for a view of justice projects as distributional and political—and thus as critical sites of social contestation—rather than inherently stabilising or destabilising. As the chapter demonstrates, in certain circumstances, transitional justice can generate a persistent confrontation with a violent past as well as a space to challenge an unequal present. It can also, however, be instrumentalised on behalf of the powerful, deployed against the weak or defanged and delegitimised.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Indigenous (In)Justice, 2013
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Media by Zinaida Miller
Just Security, 2023
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Just Security, 2020
As a scholar of transitional justice, I am heartened by efforts to de-exceptionalize the United S... more As a scholar of transitional justice, I am heartened by efforts to de-exceptionalize the United States and to bring race and anti-Black racism into conversation with international law and justice mechanisms. At their best, such efforts could help to expose and clarify the legal and political structuring of white supremacy, connect it to global structural inequality, open up narratives of American suppression and repression, and link today’s racialized inequality and violence with their long histories. They could help make discussions of reparation and repair real. Yet these fields have their own limitations and blind spots, particularly when it comes to questions of material redistribution and racialized inequality. The following five points comprise a preliminary effort to inject a note of caution as well as hope to these discussions.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Edited Collections by Zinaida Miller
In the twenty-first century, fighting impunity has become both the rallying cry and a metric of p... more In the twenty-first century, fighting impunity has become both the rallying cry and a metric of progress for human rights. The new emphasis on criminal prosecution represents a fundamental change in the positions and priorities of students and practitioners of human rights and transitional justice: it has become almost unquestionable common sense that criminal punishment is a legal, political, and pragmatic imperative for addressing human rights violations. This book challenges that common sense. It does so by documenting and critically analyzing the trend toward an anti-impunity norm in a variety of institutional and geographical contexts, with an eye toward the interaction between practices at the global and local levels. Together, the chapters demonstrate how this laser focus on anti-impunity has created blind spots in practice and in scholarship that result in a constricted response to human rights violations, a narrowed conception of justice, and an impoverished approach to peace.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Journal Articles by Zinaida Miller
Book Reviews by Zinaida Miller
Book Chapters by Zinaida Miller
political and economic power, governance, and law signal the commencement or completion of transition? Is transition an objective classification based on empirical characteristics or a political decision based on subjective determinants and contextual distributions of power? This chapter argues that the determination of an end to a transitional or post-conflict stage is itself embedded in a series of debates about the nature of
and need for such a stage at all. Those ideas build on and intertwine with a series of legal and policy practices of external rule, international intervention, and accountability that share certain assumptions, and sometimes common deformations. To govern the transition means more than an administrative title or an official grant of public power. Governance begins with classification: territories become transitional once they are so labeled. Once categorized, a vast number of multiple, competing, decentralized, disparate actors become involved in the distribution and receipt of financial, legal, and human resources. As a result,
determining the end of a transitional or post-conflict era requires understanding the import of the classification itself as well as the role of multiple actors who
engage in this particular type of rulership with significant effects on individuals and institutions. Moreover, it requires striking a balance between the desire to
replicate past successes through the creation of blueprints for governance – which can lead to underestimating the importance of context – and an exaggerated attention to the local that obscures outside contributions to conflict, inequity, and disarray. This chapter examines the possibility of an “end” to transition by inquiring into the “ends” of transition.
Media by Zinaida Miller
Edited Collections by Zinaida Miller
political and economic power, governance, and law signal the commencement or completion of transition? Is transition an objective classification based on empirical characteristics or a political decision based on subjective determinants and contextual distributions of power? This chapter argues that the determination of an end to a transitional or post-conflict stage is itself embedded in a series of debates about the nature of
and need for such a stage at all. Those ideas build on and intertwine with a series of legal and policy practices of external rule, international intervention, and accountability that share certain assumptions, and sometimes common deformations. To govern the transition means more than an administrative title or an official grant of public power. Governance begins with classification: territories become transitional once they are so labeled. Once categorized, a vast number of multiple, competing, decentralized, disparate actors become involved in the distribution and receipt of financial, legal, and human resources. As a result,
determining the end of a transitional or post-conflict era requires understanding the import of the classification itself as well as the role of multiple actors who
engage in this particular type of rulership with significant effects on individuals and institutions. Moreover, it requires striking a balance between the desire to
replicate past successes through the creation of blueprints for governance – which can lead to underestimating the importance of context – and an exaggerated attention to the local that obscures outside contributions to conflict, inequity, and disarray. This chapter examines the possibility of an “end” to transition by inquiring into the “ends” of transition.