In this thesis, I examine the effects of transitional justice and Europeanisation on the Republic of Serbia's policy of dealing with the past. The Republic of Serbia has shown – at different times - both refusal and assertion of Europeanisation. Refusal of Europeanisation did not contribute to an honest dealing with the past. While the assertion of Europeanisation accelerated compliance with the demands set out by the European Union, Serbia did comply mostly for reasons of strategy. That is, Serbia emphasized projects of dealing with the past mainly because they guarantee closer ties with the European Union. In this way, the European Union's capacity to shape the Serbian conception of history according to its identity is limited. Therefore, traditional Serbian narratives of its history will remain prevalent.
Furthermore, I discuss the merits and shortcomings of the 'regional' approach to transitional justice at the example of the RECOM initiative and explain the political potential this project may have for the post-Yugoslav countries.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Research Design
3. The State Policy of Dealing with the Past
3.1 A Fake Attempt at Dealing with the Past: The Yugoslav TRC
3.2 The 'Declaration Condemning the Crime in Srebrenica' (March 2010)
4. 'RECOM' – The Initiative for a Transnational Post-Yugoslav TRC
4.1 Transitional Justice and 'The Region'
4.2 On the Production of Victims
5. Concluding Remarks
Research Objectives & Key Themes
This thesis examines the impact of Europeanisation and transitional justice mechanisms on the Republic of Serbia's policy of dealing with its violent past. It explores how international pressure for compliance has shaped domestic narratives, often leading to strategic or "fake" adoption of reconciliation measures rather than genuine reckoning.
- The interplay between European Union enlargement policy and Serbian transitional justice.
- The effectiveness and underlying motivations of the Yugoslav Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
- The political significance and limitations of the 2010 Srebrenica Declaration.
- The role of civil society initiatives, specifically the RECOM project, in transnational truth-seeking.
- The prevalence of denial, relativisation, and selective remembrance in Serbian post-war discourse.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 A Fake Attempt at Dealing with the Past: The Yugoslav Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2001-2003)
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Komisije za istinu i pomirenje) was the first institution of the post-Milošević era allegedly tasked with confronting the recent authoritative and nationalistic past and shedding light on human rights violations and war crimes. It was established by decree of then Yugoslav president Vojislav Koštunica at the end of March 2001 and thus came just six months after the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević following the presidential elections and large-scale protests throughout the country. However, unlike the quick establishment of a TRC could suggest, responsibility for war crimes and human rights violations was not a widely shared aim of the heterogeneous opposition movement. Instead, it was the enthusiasm for a possible overthrow of Slobodan Milošević that forged a bond between the 18 parties forming the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS), the biggest opposition coalition that would run a candidate against Milošević in the presidential elections.
Why was the Yugoslav Truth and Reconciliation Commission established in the first place – in spite of a general lack of consensus in society and a merely vague idea of its shape? Brian Grodsky suggests the concept of 'compromise justice' to explain the allegedly inconsistent behaviour of states going through transition. States that just have overcome an authoritative past and military conflict often face formidable international pressure to pursue harsh measures of (transitional) justice (e.g. bringing commanders of war and leaders of the former regime before a court of law). If the new elite is confronted with a non-elite that opposes the prescribed course of transitional justice imposed by international actors, the new government feels compelled to find a compromise seeking to assuage both sides. They then engage in 'compromise justice', that is, they choose to pursue a mechanism that judges the leaders of the old regime more leniently than the prescribed one by international actors would.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter contextualizes the global shift toward transitional justice and introduces the specific case of the post-Yugoslav states and the role of the EU as a "surrogate enforcer."
2. Research Design: This section justifies the use of a qualitative case study approach to analyze Serbia's responses to transitional justice pressures from 2000 to 2011.
3. The State Policy of Dealing with the Past: This chapter analyzes state-led reconciliation efforts, focusing on the failure of the Yugoslav Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the strategic adoption of the 2010 Srebrenica Declaration.
4. 'RECOM' – The Initiative for a Transnational Post-Yugoslav TRC: This chapter examines the discourse and methodology of non-governmental human rights organizations advocating for a regional truth commission.
5. Concluding Remarks: The final chapter synthesizes findings, arguing that EU-driven symbolic compliance has not succeeded in fully suppressing nationalistic historical narratives.
Keywords
Transitional Justice, Serbia, Europeanisation, Srebrenica Declaration, RECOM, Yugoslav Truth and Reconciliation Commission, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Human Rights, Genocide, Reconciliation, Collective Memory, Nationalist Discourse, Compliance, Post-Yugoslav States, War Crimes
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work investigates how the Republic of Serbia has managed the politics of dealing with its violent past since 2000, specifically under the influence of Europeanisation and international conditionality.
What are the central thematic fields addressed?
The main themes include state-level institutional responses, NGO-led transnational initiatives, the impact of international court verdicts, and the prevalence of historical revisionism.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine whether transitional justice measures implemented in Serbia represent genuine efforts toward reconciliation or are merely strategic tools to improve relations with the European Union.
Which methodology is employed?
The author uses a qualitative case study approach, incorporating document analysis and semi-structured interviews with representatives of human rights organizations.
What does the main body cover?
The main body examines the Yugoslav Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2001–2003), the Srebrenica Declaration (2010), and the regional civil society initiative known as RECOM.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Transitional Justice, Europeanisation, Serbian historical memory, Srebrenica, RECOM, and the instrumentalisation of human rights policies.
How does the author define the "compromise justice" concept in the Serbian context?
It describes the government's strategy of adopting weak, domestically acceptable institutions to signal a commitment to human rights while simultaneously delaying or obstructing extraditions to the ICTY.
Why does the author argue that the RECOM initiative faces potential failure?
The author suggests that the reliance on a "neutral" or "inductive" methodology may lead to the unintended consequence of relativising crimes, as it struggles to harmonize competing nationalist narratives across the post-Yugoslav space.
- Quote paper
- Carsten Fiedler (Author), 2012, Transitional Justice in Serbia: The Impact on Facing the Past, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/207311
