October | 2016 | Anna Di Lellio

Anna Di Lellio and Emanuele Castano

the_danger_of_new_norms_and_the_continui-1

Anna Di Lellio is a Professor of International Affairs at the New School of Public Engagement and New York University. Emanuele Castano is a Professor of Psychology at the New School for Social Research. Abstract In the post-9/11 era, the label “asymmetric wars” has often been used to question the relevance of certain aspects of international humanitarian law (IHL); to push for redefining the combatant/civilian distinction; and to try to reverse accepted norms such as the bans on torture and assassination. In this piece, we focused on legal and policy discussions in the United States and Israel because they better illustrate the dynamics of State-led “norm entrepreneurship”, or the attempt to propose opposing or modified norms as a revision of IHL. We argue that although these developments are to be taken seriously, they have not weakened the normative power of IHL or made it passé. On the contrary, they have made it more relevant than ever. IHL is not just a complex (and increasingly sophisticated) branch of law detached from reality. Rather, it is the embodiment of widely shared principles of morality and ethics, and stands as a normative “guardian” against processes of moral disengagement that make torture and the acceptance of civilian deaths more palatable.

Seeking Justice for Wartime Sexual Violence in Kosovo: Voices and Silence of Women

Anna Di Lellio Program in International Relations, New York University, and The New School for Public Engagement

At different times, and for different reasons, Kosovo informal and organized women’s networks have dealt with wartime sexual violence in different ways: they have followed either a strategy of silence or one of speech. Throughout, they have struggled to disentangle gender from ethnicity, straddling the line between a deep connection with local culture and domestic and international norms and agendas. This article tells their story, which in broader terms is the story of the subjectivity of women’s rights activists—domestic and international—as it connects with the normative framework of transitional justice. The case of Kosovo shows that transitional justice meaningfully engages local actors as a human rights project sensitive to political change, more than as a “toolkit” which packages truth, reconciliation and justice with recipes for implementation. The case of Kosovo also confirms that lobbying by women’s networks is crucial to the inclusion of women’s perspectives in transitional justice, and that the exclusion of women from decision making results in a net loss for women’s concerns. I would take the argument even further, and suggest that the inclusion of women and their agendas, as well as the struggle by women’s networks for inclusion, is necessary for human rights transformation.