User:Willllliam/Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia: Difference between revisions

 

Line 37: Line 37:

Panels in the Women’s Court were categorized by the different modes of violence women survivors faced. The first panel, titled, “War against the civilian population,” concentrated on aggression against civilians; these included cases in which the victim’s gender or ethnicity specifically rendered them a target. The second, “Woman’s body – a battlefield” heard testimonies detailing sexual violence, while the third, “Militaristic Violence and Women’s Resistance” heard survivors of militaristic brutality and corresponding expert witnesses. The fourth panel, “Persecution of those who are different, in war and in peace” centered on cases of ethnically motivated violence during and beyond the scope of wartime. Finally, the Women’s Court delineated economic exploitation as the fifth kind of violence its participants survived in its panel, “An undeclared war (social and economic violence, women’s resistance.” <ref>{{Cite book |last=Campbell |first=Kirsten |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108683968/type/book |title=The Justice of Humans: Subject, Society and Sexual Violence in International Criminal Justice |date=2022-12-31 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-68396-8 |edition=1 |doi=10.1017/9781108683968}}</ref>

Panels in the Women’s Court were categorized by the different modes of violence women survivors faced. The first panel, titled, “War against the civilian population,” concentrated on aggression against civilians; these included cases in which the victim’s gender or ethnicity specifically rendered them a target. The second, “Woman’s body – a battlefield” heard testimonies detailing sexual violence, while the third, “Militaristic Violence and Women’s Resistance” heard survivors of militaristic brutality and corresponding expert witnesses. The fourth panel, “Persecution of those who are different, in war and in peace” centered on cases of ethnically motivated violence during and beyond the scope of wartime. Finally, the Women’s Court delineated economic exploitation as the fifth kind of violence its participants survived in its panel, “An undeclared war (social and economic violence, women’s resistance.” <ref>{{Cite book |last=Campbell |first=Kirsten |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108683968/type/book |title=The Justice of Humans: Subject, Society and Sexual Violence in International Criminal Justice |date=2022-12-31 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-68396-8 |edition=1 |doi=10.1017/9781108683968}}</ref>

The Women’s Court invoked both traditional and untraditional frameworks for justice, encompassing legal justice and extralegal transitional and people-centered models for justice. Testimonies emphasized the combined work of militaristic, gender-based, and ethnic violence in suppressing the populace of the former [[Yugoslavia]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Campbell |first=Kirsten |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108683968/type/book |title=The Justice of Humans: Subject, Society and Sexual Violence in International Criminal Justice |date=2022-12-31 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-68396-8 |edition=1 |doi=10.1017/9781108683968}}</ref>

The Women’s Court invoked both traditional and untraditional frameworks for justice, encompassing legal justice and extralegal transitional and people-centered models for justice. Testimonies emphasized the combined work of militaristic, gender-based, and ethnic violence in suppressing the populace of the former [[Yugoslavia]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Campbell |first=Kirsten |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108683968/type/book |title=The Justice of Humans: Subject, Society and Sexual Violence in International Criminal Justice |date=2022-12-31 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-68396-8 |edition=1 |doi=10.1017/9781108683968}}</ref>

== Public reception and impact ==

Recent scholarship often portrays the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia in a positive light, with many researchers highlighting its novelty. For instance, in one analysis of the Bosnian-based project, sociologist Kirsten Campbell notes that it is “the first transitional justice mechanism to be established in the former Yugoslavia and the first women’s court to solely consider crimes committed in a European conflict.”<ref name=”:0″ /> While the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia was preceded by and took inspiration from other [[World Courts of Women]], Campbell and others herald the conception of justice employed by its organizers as particularly groundbreaking.<ref name=”:0″ /><ref name=”:1″>{{Cite book |last=Fridman |first=Orli |title=Memory activism and digital practices after conflict: unwanted memories |date=2022 |publisher=Amsterdam University Press |isbn=978-90-485-5451-5 |series=Heritage and memory studies |location=Amsterdam |pages=181-182}}</ref>

Some scholars have taken issue with what they perceive as the shortcomings of the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia. Considering that this endeavor lasted just four days, these investigations critique its ephemeral nature and argue that it was not long enough to produce substantive social change. Researchers have also suggested that the scope of the crimes discussed before the Women’s Court was too narrow—some believe that its organizers did not sufficiently address the sexual violence many Balkan women endured before, during, and after the fall of Yugoslavia.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=O’Reilly |first=Maria |date=2016-07-02 |title=Peace and Justice through a Feminist Lens: Gender Justice and the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2016.1199482 |journal=Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=419–445 |doi=10.1080/17502977.2016.1199482 |issn=1750-2977}}</ref>

International relations analyst Orli Fridman notes that, since the conference itself, the organizers behind Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia have compiled “a wealth of archival materials available to future generations of activists who engage with memory activism.” This move, Fridman argues, may result in heightened feminist influence on the [[politics of memory]] surrounding the breakup of Yugoslavia.<ref name=”:1″ />

There is currently limited evidence, if any, that the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia has contributed to legislative action or policy change in the Balkan Peninsula.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Balestrino |first=Alice |date=2021 |title=Past (Im)Perfect Continuous. Trans-Cultural Articulations of the Postmemory of WWII |url=https://www.editricesapienza.it/book/8023 |journal= |language=en |pages=350 |doi=10.13133/9788893771832}}</ref>

=== References ===

=== References ===

This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution. If you’re starting a new article, you can develop it here until it’s ready to go live. If you’re working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the “Publish page” button. (It just means ‘save’; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content.

Following the conflict is Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Women’s Court of Former Yugoslavia was held in Sarajevo over a four-year period in May 2015.^[1] After meetings in 2010, the initiative to set up a Women’s Court was moved towards reality after years of discussions. There was an emphasis on giving voices to women in former-Yugoslavia and articulating a context-specific process.^[2]

Women’s Court differs from mainstream judicial procedures that serve not as an alternative, but a supplement and as complementary to official systems, especially transitional justice mechanisms. They represent a global movement that aims to reconsider rights and other notions of justice regarding women, especially from the Global South.^[3] A court or tribunal is designed as an instrument for administering justice, but a Women’s Court does not follow any mainstream concept of justice. Through serving as a supplement to mainstream justice, the Women’s Court help builds a solid foundation for the future through addressing injustices victims faced in the past.^[4]

The first round aimed to both listen to women’s grievances and hear them criticisms, as well as inform and educate all activities involved in alternative systems of establishing justice. The second half of 2011 consisted of workshops/trainings for activists to prepare public presentations at the Women’s Court, helping to spread the women’s stories.^[5]

The mechanisms and practices known as transitional were first established after the horrors of World War II in an attempt to recognize and acknowledge the injustices already committed through a legal umbrella. However, the extensions of legal measures over the second half of the 20th century did not include a justice perspective.^[6]

Prior to the Women’s Court of Former Yugoslavia, women’s courts have existed for two decades. The first women’s court occurred in 1992 in Lahore, Pakistan, where almost 40 tribunals/courts were organized. Since then, most gathering have been held in the Global South (Bangalore, India, Cairo, Tokyo in 1994; Kathmandu in 1995; Beirut, Beijing, Nairobi, Cape Town in 2001; Lusaka in 2004). During these proceedings, a wide range of human rights abuses were named, including war crimes, violence in the name of customs and religion, military violence, and economic violence and violations of workplace rights against women. Furthermore, domestic violence against women, abuse of women’s reproductive rights, crimes against native people (specifically political violence), many more. In many of these instance, concrete steps were taken either through national or international judicial mechanisms following the alternative justice demands.^[7]

Following the break-up of Yugoslavia and to honor the victims during the 1991-1999 wars, many women and feminist groups believed that the processes of mainstream justice would not address all the grievances the people had suffered. Especially, since they believed the way victims were treated would not align with feminist theory or feminist scholars argue is appropriate or ethical. In particular, a feminist intervention would conceptualize justice for the many victims of sexual violence who, when testifying before the ICTY, found their experiences humiliating and disrespectful.^[8]

Zarana Papic and Corinne Kumar first put forward the idea of establishing a Women’s Court in Sarajevo in 2000. This was participated by over 100 participants at a new paradigms of justice international conference. However, after Papic’s death in 2002, this initiative lay dormant and was postponed due to other issues.^[9]

Milosevic died in The Hague without conviction in 2006. Many felt there was no sufficient process in reaching justice, as he wasn’t pronounced guilty nor convicted of a crime. The main indictment, a crime against peace, was simply a long list of injustices suffered by many. Women in Black, revived the initiative to work on the Women’s Court, viewing the need to extend the limitations of mainstream concepts of justice. They cited the myriad of crimes the Milosevic regime committed during the wars following the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.^[10]

The first initiative was a public hearing (tribunal or court) that would cover the time period from September 1987 to October 2000, which marked the rise and fall of Milosevic’s reign, and would cover the whole territory for former Yugoslavia. This soon evolved to cover the early 2000s and would be founded as a coalition of civil society groups and peace activists.^[11]

However, in 2007 a related initiative was proposed after it became clear that it would not be possible to cover all elements of the original proposed tribunal/court. These led many civil rights, feminist, and pacifist groups to support the idea of a Women’s Tribunal/Court that served as a supplementary proceeding that intended to achieve justice for victims. A series of discussions and informal meetings led to a core group that initiated the Women’s Court, including Nuna Zvizdic, Biljana Kasic, and Stasa Zajovic. And in 2010, Nela Pamukovic, Ljupka Kovacevic, Rada Boric, Igballe Rogova, and Dasa Duhacek joined. In October 2010, there was a preparatory workshop in Sarajavo called the ‘Court of Women for the Balkans: Justice and Healing.’ This international meeting brought together experiences from Mexico, South Africa, Cambodia, Iraq, and India.^[12]

Belgrade’s branch of Women in Black, a pacifist feminist organization, spearheaded preparations for the Women’s Court in the latter half of 2010. In Serbia, organizers held seminars where women shared their stories and activists formulated the restorative justice model foundational to the 2015 Women’s Court in Sarajevo.^[13]

In late 2011, prospective presenters at the Women’s Court in Sarajevo prepared to give their testimonies by attending several trainings where Women in Black provided them with instructional materials. In the duration of these workshops, the location, scope, and structure of the Court began to take shape.^[14]

The initial meeting of the Women’s Court in Sarajevo ran from May 7 to May 10 of 2015. The Court held over the course of two days while community events spanned four days. Hearings comprised five panels where thirty-six women afflicted by wartime violence and twelve expert witnesses shared their testimonies. Witnesses testified before mediators and advocates, five hundred public observers, and the Judicial Council of the Court, a body made up of seven global and local authorities. On May 10, the final day of the Court’s session in Sarajevo, The Judicial Council announced its decisions verbally. Their judgements were copied and released in written form in September of 2015.^[15]

Panels in the Women’s Court were categorized by the different modes of violence women survivors faced. The first panel, titled, “War against the civilian population,” concentrated on aggression against civilians; these included cases in which the victim’s gender or ethnicity specifically rendered them a target. The second, “Woman’s body – a battlefield” heard testimonies detailing sexual violence, while the third, “Militaristic Violence and Women’s Resistance” heard survivors of militaristic brutality and corresponding expert witnesses. The fourth panel, “Persecution of those who are different, in war and in peace” centered on cases of ethnically motivated violence during and beyond the scope of wartime. Finally, the Women’s Court delineated economic exploitation as the fifth kind of violence its participants survived in its panel, “An undeclared war (social and economic violence, women’s resistance.” ^[16]

The Women’s Court invoked both traditional and untraditional frameworks for justice, encompassing legal justice and extralegal transitional and people-centered models for justice. Testimonies emphasized the combined work of militaristic, gender-based, and ethnic violence in suppressing the populace of the former Yugoslavia.^[17]

Recent scholarship often portrays the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia in a positive light, with many researchers highlighting its novelty. For instance, in one analysis of the Bosnian-based project, sociologist Kirsten Campbell notes that it is “the first transitional justice mechanism to be established in the former Yugoslavia and the first women’s court to solely consider crimes committed in a European conflict.”^[17] While the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia was preceded by and took inspiration from other World Courts of Women, Campbell and others herald the conception of justice employed by its organizers as particularly groundbreaking.^[17][18]

Some scholars have taken issue with what they perceive as the shortcomings of the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia. Considering that this endeavor lasted just four days, these investigations critique its ephemeral nature and argue that it was not long enough to produce substantive social change. Researchers have also suggested that the scope of the crimes discussed before the Women’s Court was too narrow—some believe that its organizers did not sufficiently address the sexual violence many Balkan women endured before, during, and after the fall of Yugoslavia.^[19]

International relations analyst Orli Fridman notes that, since the conference itself, the organizers behind Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia have compiled “a wealth of archival materials available to future generations of activists who engage with memory activism.” This move, Fridman argues, may result in heightened feminist influence on the politics of memory surrounding the breakup of Yugoslavia.^[18]

There is currently limited evidence, if any, that the Women’s Court for the Former Yugoslavia has contributed to legislative action or policy change in the Balkan Peninsula.^[20]