Reconciliation and human rights in Northern Ireland

A false dichotomy?

Maggie Beirne, Colin Knox

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Peace building interventions in Northern Ireland have attracted at least two approaches-those which advocate from a human rights-based perspective, and others which promote community relations and reconciliation as a methodology to build and consolidate peace. These interventions have been seen by many practitioners as competing and mutually exclusive. Broadly expressed, human rights practitioners described their work as primarily about challenging governments; it focuses on issues of accountability; it relies on the law and legally imposed frameworks; it is a mixture of 'soft' and 'hard' law; it has, for some human rights practitioners, a confused stance regarding the overlap between civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other; and it relies greatly on international concepts, standards, and campaigning. Exponents of reconciliation, on the other hand, argued that their work is primarily about bottom-up human dynamics and relationship-building; the creation of trust as a prerequisite to working together and breaking down barriers; and, the importance of processes as much or more than the eventual product (on the 'how' as much as, or at least before, the 'what'). Drawing on primary qualitative data from activists in both 'camps', this article will evaluate if these approaches represent a false dichotomy which fails to acknowledge potential synergies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)26-50
Number of pages25
JournalJournal of Human Rights Practice
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

reconciliation
human rights
peace
Law
political right
civil rights
synergy
responsibility
methodology
community
economics
Northern Ireland
Human Rights
Dichotomy
Reconciliation

Keywords

  • conflict
  • peace
  • reconciliation
  • transitional justice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • History
  • Law
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Reconciliation and human rights in Northern Ireland : A false dichotomy? / Beirne, Maggie; Knox, Colin.

In: Journal of Human Rights Practice, Vol. 6, No. 1, 03.2014, p. 26-50.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d15d82b3f5354bb8ad5adf9eec3b23ba,
title = "Reconciliation and human rights in Northern Ireland: A false dichotomy?",
abstract = "Peace building interventions in Northern Ireland have attracted at least two approaches-those which advocate from a human rights-based perspective, and others which promote community relations and reconciliation as a methodology to build and consolidate peace. These interventions have been seen by many practitioners as competing and mutually exclusive. Broadly expressed, human rights practitioners described their work as primarily about challenging governments; it focuses on issues of accountability; it relies on the law and legally imposed frameworks; it is a mixture of 'soft' and 'hard' law; it has, for some human rights practitioners, a confused stance regarding the overlap between civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other; and it relies greatly on international concepts, standards, and campaigning. Exponents of reconciliation, on the other hand, argued that their work is primarily about bottom-up human dynamics and relationship-building; the creation of trust as a prerequisite to working together and breaking down barriers; and, the importance of processes as much or more than the eventual product (on the 'how' as much as, or at least before, the 'what'). Drawing on primary qualitative data from activists in both 'camps', this article will evaluate if these approaches represent a false dichotomy which fails to acknowledge potential synergies.",
keywords = "conflict, peace, reconciliation, transitional justice",
author = "Maggie Beirne and Colin Knox",
year = "2014",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1093/jhuman/hut032",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "26--50",
journal = "Journal of Human Rights Practice",
issn = "1757-9619",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reconciliation and human rights in Northern Ireland

T2 - A false dichotomy?

AU - Beirne, Maggie

AU - Knox, Colin

PY - 2014/3

Y1 - 2014/3

N2 - Peace building interventions in Northern Ireland have attracted at least two approaches-those which advocate from a human rights-based perspective, and others which promote community relations and reconciliation as a methodology to build and consolidate peace. These interventions have been seen by many practitioners as competing and mutually exclusive. Broadly expressed, human rights practitioners described their work as primarily about challenging governments; it focuses on issues of accountability; it relies on the law and legally imposed frameworks; it is a mixture of 'soft' and 'hard' law; it has, for some human rights practitioners, a confused stance regarding the overlap between civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other; and it relies greatly on international concepts, standards, and campaigning. Exponents of reconciliation, on the other hand, argued that their work is primarily about bottom-up human dynamics and relationship-building; the creation of trust as a prerequisite to working together and breaking down barriers; and, the importance of processes as much or more than the eventual product (on the 'how' as much as, or at least before, the 'what'). Drawing on primary qualitative data from activists in both 'camps', this article will evaluate if these approaches represent a false dichotomy which fails to acknowledge potential synergies.

AB - Peace building interventions in Northern Ireland have attracted at least two approaches-those which advocate from a human rights-based perspective, and others which promote community relations and reconciliation as a methodology to build and consolidate peace. These interventions have been seen by many practitioners as competing and mutually exclusive. Broadly expressed, human rights practitioners described their work as primarily about challenging governments; it focuses on issues of accountability; it relies on the law and legally imposed frameworks; it is a mixture of 'soft' and 'hard' law; it has, for some human rights practitioners, a confused stance regarding the overlap between civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other; and it relies greatly on international concepts, standards, and campaigning. Exponents of reconciliation, on the other hand, argued that their work is primarily about bottom-up human dynamics and relationship-building; the creation of trust as a prerequisite to working together and breaking down barriers; and, the importance of processes as much or more than the eventual product (on the 'how' as much as, or at least before, the 'what'). Drawing on primary qualitative data from activists in both 'camps', this article will evaluate if these approaches represent a false dichotomy which fails to acknowledge potential synergies.

KW - conflict

KW - peace

KW - reconciliation

KW - transitional justice

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897800122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897800122&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jhuman/hut032

DO - 10.1093/jhuman/hut032

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 26

EP - 50

JO - Journal of Human Rights Practice

JF - Journal of Human Rights Practice

SN - 1757-9619

IS - 1

ER -