Challenging Transitional Justice
SSRN Electronic Journal
2012
- 3Citations
- 2,529Usage
- 6Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Sixty-six years after the Nuremburg trials, the practice and study of transitional justice is well established. To robustly engage with current debates in the field, this introduction to the edited collection 'Critical Perspectives in Transitional Justice', stresses disagreement rather than consensus. It explores the nature of divisions within the field of transitional justice and subjects these to close scrutiny. It lays out four principal concerns with current trends in transitional justice: the under-theorisation of the field; its disconnect from core academic disciplines; its tendency toward advocacy rather than analysis; and its emphasis on technical institutional responses without clear articulations of their objectives and discusses how the chapters included in this collection respond to these concerns.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know