You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items

  • Author or Editor: Lucas Lixinski x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Lucas Lixinski

The chapter examines the diversity of transitional justice architectures in Latin America. While there is increased pressure to move towards anti-impunity and criminalization as responses to past atrocity in the region, other solutions have been adopted, and are still in place; these include amnesties, on the one hand, and memorialization and reparation processes, on the other. These three archetypes of transitional justice (amnesties; memorialization and reparations; and criminal prosecutions) can be explained by different political and historical contingencies across different countries. International justice projects have pushed for increasing use of criminal law measures in the context of transition, to the point where other measures are either deemed illegal, or are eclipsed by the focus on prosecutions. This focus, I argue, eclipses the politics of transition, and in doing so prevents countries from addressing the structural causes of the original instability. Keywords: transitional justice, Plan Condor, Inter-American Court, amnesties, memory, prosecutions

This content is available to you

Lucas Lixinski

This chapter engages with the international legal frameworks with respect to intangible cultural heritage, focusing particularly on one universal instrument (the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, under the auspices of UNESCO), and one regional instrument applicable in Europe (the 2005 Faro Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, under the auspices of the Council of Europe). In examining the two instruments, the chapter queries their interrelationships, and the fit of contemporary culture within these regimes. It shows that, while the legal instruments do not seem able to accommodate contemporary culture as heritage (under these treaties' definitions), contemporary culture as a safeguarding practice can in fact be a part of these legal regimes.

You do not have access to this content

Lucas Lixinski

This article discusses a novel mechanism by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) for promoting systemic change in domestic jurisdictions: joint supervision of compliance with multiple judgments issued against the same State. The article puts this mechanism in comparison to the European Court of Human Rights’ pilot judgments procedure, a more established mechanism with a longer history. In assessing these mechanisms in relation to human rights courts’ legitimacy and impact, the article argues that the IACtHR's mechanism has higher legitimacy costs in relation to the State, but lower vis-à-vis the international human rights community, even if ultimately both mechanisms are first and foremost about addressing court backlogs, and only incidentally about promoting systemic change.

You do not have access to this content

Claudia Lima Marques, Lucas Lixinski and Pablo Marcello Baquero