1
00:00:00,060 --> 00:00:05,640
Full house to have the seating for the first of the Centre for Criminology, also seminar series.

2
00:00:06,060 --> 00:00:10,680
And if there are people in the audience who aren't on our seminar list or our

3
00:00:10,680 --> 00:00:14,400
events list and therefore don't know about the rest of the seminar series,

4
00:00:14,700 --> 00:00:23,010
there are some handouts at the end on the fall table which tells you about the other seminars and if you want to get on to the list,

5
00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:27,750
just give me your email at the end of the seminar and I'll get you access to it.

6
00:00:30,570 --> 00:00:36,330
So welcome to the first seminar. Welcome to the MSI students who are new and we hope you enjoy the series.

7
00:00:36,570 --> 00:00:43,710
We have our first speaker, Professor Willem de Haan from the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology in the Free University of Amsterdam,

8
00:00:44,190 --> 00:00:48,360
but also groaning university too. I think it's speak for people,

9
00:00:48,930 --> 00:00:56,850
people who has enormous expertise over the years in various different criminology and criminal justice topics around the field of violence,

10
00:00:56,850 --> 00:01:04,650
crime prevention, particularly around criminality and violence in the public domain, and how environmental factors affect that.

11
00:01:05,070 --> 00:01:08,959
But today and I think this is partly why we have such a large audience,

12
00:01:08,960 --> 00:01:14,850
he's going to talk about problems of anachronism and judgement of past international crimes.

13
00:01:15,420 --> 00:01:21,570
So I think that would be of interest to our criminology students and to the transitional justice students who I think are also here.

14
00:01:21,750 --> 00:01:28,230
So thank you very much for coming quite a way. And then we have technology as well.

15
00:01:29,540 --> 00:01:35,940
That's fine. Thank you very much, Carolyn, for your were nice words of welcome.

16
00:01:37,140 --> 00:01:42,220
I'm absolutely delighted and honoured to be invited to this place.

17
00:01:42,270 --> 00:01:48,630
Excellent. And to see such a large turn up today.

18
00:01:48,660 --> 00:01:52,559
I don't think it's for me, it's for the series and it's the first time.

19
00:01:52,560 --> 00:01:55,560
And you're probably curious what it's going to be like.

20
00:01:56,190 --> 00:02:04,679
And what I'd like to do is to share some thoughts of you on a problem we as

21
00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:11,040
criminologist and criminal lawyers face when we're dealing with international crimes,

22
00:02:11,460 --> 00:02:17,160
crimes against humanity that were committed in the past, even in the distant past.

23
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:26,140
Generally, the past is not something that criminologists care to think about very often.

24
00:02:27,490 --> 00:02:33,069
We usually study contemporary problems of crime, security, criminal justice,

25
00:02:33,070 --> 00:02:40,270
etc. And of course we talk about that and we think about that in the works we have.

26
00:02:40,300 --> 00:02:46,260
And like I said, we don't give that very much thought, talk, thought.

27
00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:52,030
It's it's self-evident evident, however, when we study.

28
00:02:52,510 --> 00:02:55,900
Oh, that was too far away for you.

29
00:02:56,350 --> 00:03:01,720
Okay. This was the purpose.

30
00:03:01,750 --> 00:03:12,940
Now go to the next one. When we do research on atrocities that happened in the past.

31
00:03:14,170 --> 00:03:18,280
Our research focus on state crimes of previous regimes.

32
00:03:18,940 --> 00:03:22,900
We study old crimes from new perspectives.

33
00:03:22,930 --> 00:03:35,919
These are titles from articles and books written in this field, and all crimes from new perspectives already signals what the problem is, namely,

34
00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:45,639
that we have to be aware of some methodological issues implicated in the use of contemporary concept,

35
00:03:45,640 --> 00:03:52,210
criminological concept to describe and explain historical events.

36
00:03:54,650 --> 00:04:03,830
Next one, please. There's going to be a lot studying atrocities that were committed in the past.

37
00:04:04,460 --> 00:04:07,970
Inevitably confronts us with questions like,

38
00:04:08,390 --> 00:04:16,850
Can we legitimately ascribe meanings to actions they did not have at the time that these crimes were committed?

39
00:04:17,840 --> 00:04:21,260
Or are we then culpable of anachronism?

40
00:04:21,950 --> 00:04:28,940
And I'll explain later what that means, because we are applying contemporary concept to describe and explain historical events.

41
00:04:30,110 --> 00:04:41,380
Is it, for example, acceptable to use a concept like Crimes of Obedience developed to explain a massacre committed in 1968

42
00:04:41,390 --> 00:04:47,480
during the Vietnam War by American Sergeant William Kelly and his platoon in the village of M.I.

43
00:04:48,620 --> 00:05:00,050
To describe and explain a similar event, a massacre that took place during the colonial war in the former Dutch East Indies in 1894.

44
00:05:01,470 --> 00:05:15,740
An explanation. In April 1998, it became publicly known that Hendrik Colon, Dutch prime minister from 1925 to 1939,

45
00:05:16,580 --> 00:05:24,260
had been involved in killings killings of civilians during the military expeditions into former East Indies.

46
00:05:25,480 --> 00:05:32,500
Historian Herman Lagerfeld in his biography of Caroline Maxwell,

47
00:05:34,210 --> 00:05:41,440
quoted from letters in which the 25 year old Lieutenant Caroline tells his wife and his

48
00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:50,650
parents about a raid on the palace of the Raja in the town Shotgun Haggadah in 1894.

49
00:05:50,980 --> 00:06:04,740
On the island of Lombok. That's one that was the opening picture and an imagination of the atrocity.

50
00:06:04,750 --> 00:06:13,240
While it wasn't seen as an atrocity when this picture was made, this is a picture for schoolchildren, and it's from the Colonial Museum.

51
00:06:13,990 --> 00:06:17,530
But this is the scene that I'm talking about and an excellent piece.

52
00:06:18,670 --> 00:06:21,250
So Caroline writes to his wife,

53
00:06:22,210 --> 00:06:31,240
I have seen a woman with a child of about six months on her left arm and a long lance in her right hand storming at us.

54
00:06:32,230 --> 00:06:37,810
One of our bullets kills mother and child. We were not allowed to show mercy.

55
00:06:38,890 --> 00:06:44,290
I had to have nine women and three children who were asking for mercy.

56
00:06:44,890 --> 00:06:50,950
Rounded up and shot. It was unpleasant work, but there was no other way.

57
00:06:52,090 --> 00:06:55,110
It was terrible. I'll stop now.

58
00:06:57,160 --> 00:07:05,170
In a letter to his parents, he goes on. After. After the attack, the few remained who were asking for mercy.

59
00:07:06,190 --> 00:07:11,260
13. I believe the soldier's questioning lay at me.

60
00:07:12,550 --> 00:07:18,330
I turned around to light a cigar. There were some heartbreaking cries.

61
00:07:18,330 --> 00:07:22,440
And when I turned around again, those 13 were dead to.

62
00:07:24,980 --> 00:07:33,250
Next one, please. Disclosure of these passages led to what historian John Blocker called a war on colon.

63
00:07:34,820 --> 00:07:40,040
Fellow historian John O'Brien argued that Lagerfeld, the biographer,

64
00:07:40,310 --> 00:07:48,170
by accusing Klein retrospectively of war crimes, had committed a form of a historic moralism.

65
00:07:49,310 --> 00:07:58,460
From a historical perspective, he argued, it is not allowed to apply contemporary values and norms to events that took place in the past.

66
00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:04,620
Even if we find that according to contemporary standards.

67
00:08:05,750 --> 00:08:16,850
The Dutch colonial army acted unacceptably. We should take into account that a century ago, public opinion looks at this differently.

68
00:08:18,400 --> 00:08:26,920
From a historical perspective, Caroline should thus not be seen as a war criminal, but as a child of his time.

69
00:08:28,670 --> 00:08:35,180
Next one. A case in point is that Colin was knighted with the military.

70
00:08:35,180 --> 00:08:38,870
Dellums order for courage, prudence and fidelity.

71
00:08:41,140 --> 00:08:42,969
In reaction to the Brown,

72
00:08:42,970 --> 00:08:53,500
historian John Blocher argued that the acts of historical figures might have been considered immoral or criminal by their contemporaries,

73
00:08:53,860 --> 00:09:10,910
even at the time they were committed. Lagerfeld in his biography, in fact, showed that at least one eye witness, a captain in the Army.

74
00:09:12,500 --> 00:09:22,310
Called Class Acts, cold blooded murder, and noted that Colon had a reputation for being one of the worst attack killers.

75
00:09:24,210 --> 00:09:28,080
Therefore, I cannot accept one cannot maintain, like the brand did,

76
00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:39,060
that what we today consider crimes of war were necessarily seen as normal and acceptable at the time these events took place.

77
00:09:40,620 --> 00:09:46,230
One cannot maintain that these were not war crimes just because they were not labelled as such.

78
00:09:46,920 --> 00:09:50,290
At the time, they were committed. I'm ex-wife.

79
00:09:51,020 --> 00:10:00,380
Oh, we were looking very hard. I was fine. Yeah. A professor of literary criticism argued that the brand's claim.

80
00:10:01,710 --> 00:10:10,080
That forest from a historical perspective could and should be seen as a child of his time revealed a double standard,

81
00:10:10,980 --> 00:10:18,090
if only because, quote, no one ever said that of Iceman or Carol Sheets in her view.

82
00:10:18,090 --> 00:10:22,920
Therefore, Cullen is a criminal in the context of any time.

83
00:10:27,260 --> 00:10:35,450
In an interview with collapsed biographer, it was suggested that following the standards of the Contemporary Yugoslavia Tribunal,

84
00:10:35,750 --> 00:10:38,570
he Coghlan would have been a war criminal.

85
00:10:40,300 --> 00:10:52,840
Even though the claim is clearly, if not intentionally anachronistic, we could consider this as an hypothesis and also hypothetically,

86
00:10:53,020 --> 00:11:01,780
hypothetically verify whether Lieutenant Cullen would have been convicted by the ICC to why.

87
00:11:03,600 --> 00:11:09,210
Such a legal thought experiment could, however, be conceived in two different ways.

88
00:11:10,110 --> 00:11:20,910
First, as if the historical atrocities in which Lt Col was involved have taken place within the contemporary context of former Yugoslavia,

89
00:11:21,810 --> 00:11:30,450
or as if the city had hypothetically jurisdiction over crimes committed in the past.

90
00:11:32,540 --> 00:11:35,840
In the first case, the question to be answered would be,

91
00:11:36,530 --> 00:11:43,670
is there sufficient evidence and are there sufficient legal grounds to conclude that Caroline,

92
00:11:44,030 --> 00:11:49,989
or rather someone contemporary, behaving like him, would indeed be convicted by the US?

93
00:11:49,990 --> 00:11:56,709
Should she asked you why? To answer this question.

94
00:11:56,710 --> 00:12:00,190
Most relevant is the jurisprudence of the ICC.

95
00:12:00,200 --> 00:12:03,519
Why that under certain conditions,

96
00:12:03,520 --> 00:12:14,140
superior military commander or civilian leader can be held criminally responsible for international crimes committed by his subordinates?

97
00:12:16,230 --> 00:12:23,250
Now I won't go into into the detail of the jurisprudence of the to why,

98
00:12:23,880 --> 00:12:32,700
but we'll just say that on the basis of the facts and circumstances and supposing the evidence were beyond reasonable doubt,

99
00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:39,300
Caroline would have been held responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates.

100
00:12:40,770 --> 00:12:43,920
And. Been guilty of war crimes.

101
00:12:45,200 --> 00:12:51,770
On the basis of the jurisprudence of the ITC. Why? Lieutenant Colonel Lang as a superior commander.

102
00:12:53,300 --> 00:12:56,720
Would have been convicted for knowing that his subordinates,

103
00:12:56,960 --> 00:13:03,440
subordinates were going to commit these crimes, given that they had already committed similar crimes,

104
00:13:03,440 --> 00:13:05,090
possibly under his command,

105
00:13:05,780 --> 00:13:15,410
and for failing to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent these crimes or to punish the perpetrators for committing them.

106
00:13:16,100 --> 00:13:18,710
This is all asantewaa jurisprudence.

107
00:13:20,560 --> 00:13:27,400
In the second case that hypothetically the answer to why I have jurisdiction over crimes committed in the distant past.

108
00:13:28,860 --> 00:13:36,419
It is arguable that the acts to which my admitted in his letters were unlawful under

109
00:13:36,420 --> 00:13:43,980
international law at the time of their commission and violated international humanitarian force.

110
00:13:45,360 --> 00:13:51,480
We're done talking about The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907,

111
00:13:52,050 --> 00:14:00,780
and about the Martens clause prohibiting human rights violations out of legal details.

112
00:14:01,170 --> 00:14:11,580
But even when we look at the distant past, there are juridical grounds to consider these acts as war crimes.

113
00:14:17,170 --> 00:14:31,570
If anything, the legal thought experiment makes clear that this Lieutenant Caroline cannot simply be considered or excused as a child of his time.

114
00:14:33,100 --> 00:14:39,010
From a contemporary perspective, he may be seen as a criminal in the context of any time,

115
00:14:39,850 --> 00:14:46,360
and the events in which he was involved may retrospectively be seen as crimes of war.

116
00:14:48,150 --> 00:14:52,830
Yet. I think we have to move on now that we have to at.

117
00:14:54,810 --> 00:14:57,660
Yeah. Yeah. Historians.

118
00:14:58,620 --> 00:15:09,690
Historians consider it senseless to judge events that received a moral meaning in a specific historical context on the basis of what we know now.

119
00:15:11,310 --> 00:15:15,930
To some, it is a matter of a historic moralism if we've seen.

120
00:15:16,500 --> 00:15:21,150
To others, it is a matter of senseless anachronism.

121
00:15:23,660 --> 00:15:31,850
Like a historic moralism. The accusation of senseless anachronism could be brushed aside as merely rhetorical,

122
00:15:32,510 --> 00:15:43,820
an effort to disqualify moral criticism and to protect the moral reputation of Prime Minister cool by his historical legacy.

123
00:15:44,330 --> 00:15:54,230
I think that this, in part with the War on Kaline was about about his historic allegedly legacy in his reputation.

124
00:15:55,070 --> 00:16:06,380
However, if we take the accusations seriously, the accusation of senseless anachronism, it raises the question what exactly is anachronism?

125
00:16:06,980 --> 00:16:10,790
And what's the problem with it? And that's what I'll be talking.

126
00:16:11,150 --> 00:16:16,960
No. Anachronism.

127
00:16:18,250 --> 00:16:30,370
And against Chronos, time has been defined as the impropriety of depicting past phenomena in terms of present values,

128
00:16:30,610 --> 00:16:34,330
assumptions or interpretive categories.

129
00:16:35,970 --> 00:16:45,240
This is a fallacy which shows a lack of awareness that the past difference differs in fundamental ways from the present.

130
00:16:47,170 --> 00:16:55,450
Next one. An example of anachronism is the use of the word holocaust.

131
00:16:56,980 --> 00:17:11,050
It was introduced in 1948 and the Declaration of Independence of Israel to capture the special character of the genocide of European Jewry.

132
00:17:12,730 --> 00:17:23,200
But only became generally known to the public following the Golden Globe and Emmy Award winning American TV series entitled Holocaust in 1978.

133
00:17:27,320 --> 00:17:37,520
In 2001, the German Israeli historian Dan Deiner observed that, I quote, well into the 1970s,

134
00:17:38,210 --> 00:17:46,940
wide ranging portraits of the A park would grant the Holocaust a modest, if any, mention at all.

135
00:17:47,960 --> 00:17:54,410
By contrast, it now 2001 tends to fill the entire picture.

136
00:17:55,340 --> 00:18:05,180
So just to show one example that we now tend to believe that what happened during the Second World War

137
00:18:06,110 --> 00:18:14,149
that the kill and mass killing of the Jews had always been seen as and talked about as the Holocaust,

138
00:18:14,150 --> 00:18:15,380
which is simply not true.

139
00:18:15,860 --> 00:18:29,780
The Holocaust is a fairly recent concept in in public discourse, even though it was mentioned one time in the Declaration of Independence of Israel.

140
00:18:31,650 --> 00:18:39,660
As a result of the growing popularity of the word Holocaust for many reasons that I can't go into now.

141
00:18:41,280 --> 00:18:45,420
It was subsequently used to describe other mass killings,

142
00:18:45,960 --> 00:18:56,370
like the famine during and after the Japanese occupation in the East Indies, which was called the East East Indian Holocaust.

143
00:18:56,970 --> 00:19:14,880
The next one place. Or more recently, a book about the Spanish Civil War, 1936 1939, which was published and titled The Spanish Holocaust in 2012.

144
00:19:16,260 --> 00:19:20,800
Explain these and other examples of anachronism.

145
00:19:21,020 --> 00:19:27,670
Raise two sets of questions. First, is any form of anachronism senseless?

146
00:19:28,770 --> 00:19:33,330
And in fact, senseless anachronism, therefore a play on Nazism?

147
00:19:34,320 --> 00:19:40,290
Or can we just distinguish between senseless and sensible forms of anachronism?

148
00:19:42,100 --> 00:19:50,620
And second, does each and every form of anachronism inevitably imply a historic moralism?

149
00:19:52,710 --> 00:19:59,270
Or if well-founded moral judgements of historical events are possible.

150
00:19:59,280 --> 00:20:01,680
After all, that remains to be seen.

151
00:20:02,610 --> 00:20:12,629
Does this mean that the study of war crimes by historical figures should not simply be dismissed as ahistorical moralism and senseless anachronism,

152
00:20:12,630 --> 00:20:19,650
but be taken seriously for what they were crimes of war, violations of human rights, etc.

153
00:20:21,170 --> 00:20:31,590
Next one. In art, literature and audiovisual media anachronisms about there.

154
00:20:32,350 --> 00:20:41,919
When you start to look at it, they're everywhere. And a very striking example of such an intentional use of anachronism was televised

155
00:20:41,920 --> 00:20:46,540
was a televised reconstruction of the first day of the war in Indonesia.

156
00:20:47,300 --> 00:20:51,280
The Dutch army intervened in 1948.

157
00:20:51,280 --> 00:20:57,430
It was called a police show action with a euphemism, but it was fighting a war there.

158
00:20:58,780 --> 00:21:06,159
What happened in 1974 was brought to the viewer in this program by life correspondents in Jakarta,

159
00:21:06,160 --> 00:21:13,210
The Hague, Washington, etc. and it was as if colour television already existed in those days.

160
00:21:14,020 --> 00:21:17,740
It was very made, very lively, very well, very well done.

161
00:21:18,160 --> 00:21:33,400
And and they made very creative use of the way we look at news to consume news, digest news, etc., to get an understanding of what the situation was.

162
00:21:33,410 --> 00:21:47,170
I thought it was brilliantly, brilliantly done. I could give many examples in in in art and literature of the deliberate use of anachronisms.

163
00:21:47,620 --> 00:21:56,110
Sometimes it's unintentional, but often it is done with a certain purpose, a rhetorical purpose, an artistic purpose.

164
00:21:56,860 --> 00:22:04,480
While in art, literature and the media anachronisms are accepted or at least tolerated in academia,

165
00:22:05,140 --> 00:22:10,780
an anachronism tends to be considered a grave error, although there are some exceptions.

166
00:22:12,680 --> 00:22:15,890
Like there are always some exceptions and here are some exceptions too.

167
00:22:16,190 --> 00:22:23,900
For example, historian Peter Burke has argued that anachronism may indeed be productive for historians.

168
00:22:24,320 --> 00:22:28,490
A very deviant position, I assume.

169
00:22:29,360 --> 00:22:34,370
But as an example, he refers to the best selling book, Montague,

170
00:22:35,120 --> 00:22:42,740
in which historian what you read described an 18th century village in the south of France.

171
00:22:43,160 --> 00:22:50,360
The way a modern anthropologist would describe a village in the 20th century very effectively.

172
00:22:52,190 --> 00:23:03,530
Anachronisms. May, according to Burke, therefore make the subject matter more interesting by introducing a dramatic human dimension in this way.

173
00:23:04,960 --> 00:23:10,530
Next slide, please. Generally.

174
00:23:10,530 --> 00:23:22,139
However, within within in history historiography they call it the methodological fallacy of anachronism is considered to be serious,

175
00:23:22,140 --> 00:23:34,770
and it has even be called the historical sin of sense, having been caught in the act of committing such a methodological fallacy,

176
00:23:35,250 --> 00:23:39,299
which happened to me when I was accused of senseless anachronism,

177
00:23:39,300 --> 00:23:49,380
when I talked about this thought experiment with asked you why makes one feel ashamed for being so stupidly unscientific

178
00:23:49,830 --> 00:23:57,240
and showing such a total lack of awareness of the fact that the past differs fundamentally from the present.

179
00:23:57,660 --> 00:24:06,180
And when I imagined the situation that had happened, I still feel very uneasy about it even.

180
00:24:06,420 --> 00:24:12,090
But even historians do not consider every form of anachronism a mortal sin.

181
00:24:12,660 --> 00:24:22,320
According to some, for example, definitions of anachronism have in fact set the bar too, too high.

182
00:24:23,400 --> 00:24:27,360
So you could say to some historians,

183
00:24:27,360 --> 00:24:39,210
this is too dogmatic to say that each and every form of anachronism is a historical sin, let alone the sin of sins.

184
00:24:40,950 --> 00:24:42,689
One reason for that, for this,

185
00:24:42,690 --> 00:24:56,850
is that anachronism is unavoidable because historians are tied to the present and have knowledge which contemporary actors at the time never have.

186
00:24:58,500 --> 00:24:59,850
And as a matter of fact,

187
00:24:59,850 --> 00:25:09,060
most historical explanations are based on descriptions and classifications that were not available to the objects of research.

188
00:25:11,600 --> 00:25:16,610
However, the fact that the historian is tied to the present does not imply that anything goes.

189
00:25:18,260 --> 00:25:26,030
It is important to carefully distinguish between types of anachronism that are simply inevitable.

190
00:25:28,150 --> 00:25:35,740
An anachronism that are not inevitable, but nevertheless may be legitimate or even desirable.

191
00:25:38,110 --> 00:25:45,280
Conceptual anachronism is inevitable. If the historian has the ambition to describe and explain past deeds,

192
00:25:46,150 --> 00:25:53,350
then description and explanation will demand categories not available to the agents, the historical agents themselves.

193
00:25:53,590 --> 00:25:58,750
It would, for example, be legitimate to describe people as homosexuals,

194
00:25:59,440 --> 00:26:05,890
even if they lived in a time when the concept of homosexuality had not yet entered the vocabulary.

195
00:26:07,330 --> 00:26:13,060
This form of descriptive anachronism would be appropriate, however,

196
00:26:13,090 --> 00:26:21,940
only if homosexuality were defined in terms of the behaviour of people having sex with people of the same sex.

197
00:26:23,290 --> 00:26:32,170
It would not be allowed to project a modern idea of homosexuality on an earlier period,

198
00:26:32,560 --> 00:26:40,390
nor to impose modern values about sexuality on a situation in the pre-modern world.

199
00:26:43,170 --> 00:26:53,160
But even such a form of judgemental anachronism could be legitimate, as, for example, in the case of violations of human rights.

200
00:26:55,500 --> 00:27:01,350
In a discussion of the work of the famous historian historian quant Quentin Skinner,

201
00:27:02,790 --> 00:27:11,760
he is claimed to have stated that we cannot logically denounce the Chilean country for failing to uphold basic,

202
00:27:11,970 --> 00:27:17,490
basic human rights because they never had any intention of doing so.

203
00:27:19,340 --> 00:27:22,909
In response to this claim, it has been argued that,

204
00:27:22,910 --> 00:27:29,450
of course we can't criticise the Chilean country for not upholding basic human rights and we should.

205
00:27:31,100 --> 00:27:40,970
Because in this case it's perfectly in line with Skinner's thought to condemn the agent as ignorance or maliciousness.

206
00:27:42,140 --> 00:27:54,320
This is a fairly sophisticated and detailed debate between Skinner and other historians that I cannot go into now,

207
00:27:54,320 --> 00:28:09,140
and possibly I'm not even able to to to analyse in all its finesse finesses that theoretical historians have.

208
00:28:09,890 --> 00:28:20,090
But I thought the debate is interesting because it's it's about such a clear case of a military dictatorship in South America.

209
00:28:20,390 --> 00:28:33,200
And the question whether or not we ask as as as we speak now are legitimately could legitimately

210
00:28:33,200 --> 00:28:41,690
condemn these historical actors for having done what they've done in cases like this.

211
00:28:42,320 --> 00:28:51,230
Anachronistic use of contemporary concepts, theories and perspectives, alien to two historical agents is perfectly legitimate.

212
00:28:52,070 --> 00:29:01,940
It may even be desirable because past agents may have deceived themselves about their motives or simply have possessed a more

213
00:29:01,940 --> 00:29:11,060
limited understanding of the processes they took part in or witnessed than historians enjoying the benefit of hindsight have today.

214
00:29:12,350 --> 00:29:20,719
In other words, anachronistic unfaithfulness to concepts and categories of past agents does not

215
00:29:20,720 --> 00:29:27,230
always constitute an historically incoherent interpretation of past deeds.

216
00:29:27,740 --> 00:29:38,360
It's some, in some cases, retrospective application of contemporary theories and conceptual frameworks to historical events will

217
00:29:38,360 --> 00:29:46,070
allow a better understanding of historical events that was possible while they were taking place.

218
00:29:46,910 --> 00:29:56,540
Understanding the past in contemporary terms, stronger than in its own terms, can be a manifestation of historical sophistication.

219
00:29:59,090 --> 00:30:04,000
And I'm going to do. We had that.

220
00:30:06,010 --> 00:30:11,350
Yeah. Now we're going to take a legal perspective on anachronism.

221
00:30:12,400 --> 00:30:20,860
And I'd like to say, especially to the students, to signal to me, please, when, when I'm losing you.

222
00:30:20,860 --> 00:30:25,570
And in the argument, don't be shy. You're doing me service.

223
00:30:26,080 --> 00:30:31,510
If you stop me and say, Oh, wait a minute, I didn't get this.

224
00:30:31,810 --> 00:30:44,290
So maybe, maybe just I stop here for a minute to see if it's been somewhat clear to you what I've argued so far.

225
00:30:45,280 --> 00:30:55,390
Have you have you understood the problem, that you can be humiliated by historians if you don't if you don't watch your step

226
00:30:56,140 --> 00:31:00,250
when you're dealing with historical with historical human rights violations,

227
00:31:01,210 --> 00:31:07,060
all we need to be to be on guard with them. So that's clear, I think.

228
00:31:08,170 --> 00:31:13,840
And have you understood why, even when you take historians to task,

229
00:31:14,530 --> 00:31:25,840
that there is there is leeway there to use contemporary the contemporary concept that we as criminologist I used to work with,

230
00:31:26,170 --> 00:31:34,990
to use them to to understand, to explain, even to describe to some extent what happened in the past.

231
00:31:36,120 --> 00:31:41,730
Or is that? How's that? Speak up.

232
00:31:44,540 --> 00:31:49,080
How you're doing? Me servers. Okay.

233
00:31:50,130 --> 00:31:54,780
Maybe you're all lawyers now and then. We're going to continue with with the law perspective.

234
00:31:54,780 --> 00:32:07,500
Now, what historians consider as anachronistic from a legal perspective will be seen as a violation of the principle of legality.

235
00:32:09,030 --> 00:32:17,219
The operative moral principle in criminal law demands that person faces criminal charges

236
00:32:17,220 --> 00:32:25,230
only for an act that has been criminalised by law at the time the act was committed.

237
00:32:26,130 --> 00:32:30,150
No. Retrospective application of law.

238
00:32:32,460 --> 00:32:36,120
In international criminal law.

239
00:32:36,120 --> 00:32:47,790
This is and this is an all legal principle, right. But in international criminal law, everything is more more liquid.

240
00:32:48,150 --> 00:32:53,450
Zygmunt Bauman would say it's more you know, it's more and more still contested.

241
00:32:53,460 --> 00:32:56,460
It's it's it's in flux. It's changing.

242
00:32:57,270 --> 00:33:04,590
So in international criminal law, it may be admissible to convict to convict a defendant,

243
00:33:05,370 --> 00:33:14,580
even if at the time the crimes were committed, these actions were proved propagated and enforced by the state.

244
00:33:15,630 --> 00:33:21,030
And an obvious example for that is that this is that at the Nuremberg trials,

245
00:33:21,030 --> 00:33:30,629
some lawyers argued in favour of the defendants that the genocidal actions committed during the Third

246
00:33:30,630 --> 00:33:40,830
Reich did not constitute crimes because they were not violations of law in effect at the time and place.

247
00:33:43,310 --> 00:33:46,640
During the trial. This argument was overruled. However,

248
00:33:47,150 --> 00:33:57,980
by the contrary argument that it was more significant that these actions were criminal under Germany's treaty obligations and pre-existing German law.

249
00:33:58,610 --> 00:34:05,630
And ultimately the Nazis would be tried and convicted also for crimes against humanity,

250
00:34:06,080 --> 00:34:13,310
which were not yet officially recognised as a legal category in international criminal law.

251
00:34:16,290 --> 00:34:25,230
Since then, in international criminal law, there is a tendency to relax the principle of legality in exceptional situations.

252
00:34:26,160 --> 00:34:35,880
In these cases, a violation of the legality principle is seen as not only morally justified, but even legally legitimate.

253
00:34:46,330 --> 00:34:56,290
In 1968, the convention of non applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and Crimes against Humanity was adopted,

254
00:34:57,070 --> 00:35:02,110
which guaranteed imprest repeatability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

255
00:35:03,370 --> 00:35:10,870
As a result, the prosecution of these international crimes could be no longer restricted by time limits.

256
00:35:13,360 --> 00:35:16,540
This was meant for crimes during the Second World War.

257
00:35:17,800 --> 00:35:27,850
To prevent that those have committed them would, after all, go free, but has since been applied on a much broader scale.

258
00:35:28,510 --> 00:35:37,750
In Argentina, for example, prosecutions and trials of suspects of human rights violations during the military dictatorship of 19 six,

259
00:35:37,990 --> 00:35:49,300
76, 1983 have been resumed after the Supreme Court of Argentina ruled in 2005 that amnesty laws of the 1990 were unconstitutional.

260
00:35:49,630 --> 00:35:53,740
Exactly. Because these crimes were imprisoned, corruptible.

261
00:35:55,530 --> 00:36:03,809
Therefore they could still be prosecuted 30 years or more after the events took

262
00:36:03,810 --> 00:36:09,510
place by declaring war crimes and crimes against humanity in proscriptive,

263
00:36:09,510 --> 00:36:13,610
all the legality principle is somewhat relaxed.

264
00:36:13,650 --> 00:36:23,790
You could say a legal anachronism, which I use as an equivalent or historical anachronism.

265
00:36:24,720 --> 00:36:27,900
The legality is no longer unattainable.

266
00:36:27,930 --> 00:36:38,520
There are situations where it's seen as more morally acceptable or even even mandatory to relax the principle,

267
00:36:39,000 --> 00:36:48,930
to go ahead with prosecution trial of these horrific crimes, even when they were committed in a distant past.

268
00:36:54,410 --> 00:37:02,050
Q But even in cases in which suspected perpetrators themselves are no longer alive,

269
00:37:02,060 --> 00:37:10,220
and that's usually where a criminal trial ends, think of the trial against Milosevic or Milosevic died in prison.

270
00:37:10,610 --> 00:37:23,690
That was end of story. And when we had a talk at the university with Alfons Ory, one of the sitting judges on the on the trial against Milosevic,

271
00:37:24,350 --> 00:37:36,410
and I asked him if it would be imaginable to continue the trial for for for truth finding.

272
00:37:37,830 --> 00:37:40,970
He said, well, we are judges, we are not historians.

273
00:37:41,510 --> 00:37:49,370
And that was for him. End of story. Now, for historians, that's that's different.

274
00:37:49,370 --> 00:37:52,520
And maybe for criminal charges, criminologists.

275
00:37:52,730 --> 00:38:08,030
And it needs to be different, too, because there seems to be room for historical injustices in in international law,

276
00:38:08,210 --> 00:38:11,960
not so much international criminal law maybe, but in international law.

277
00:38:12,710 --> 00:38:22,580
And that is the evolution of what we call a right to truth, which is now to be recognised by a number of human rights treaties,

278
00:38:23,960 --> 00:38:29,330
the right to truth grants, victims of human rights violations and their relatives.

279
00:38:29,870 --> 00:38:32,599
A fundamental and in proscriptive.

280
00:38:32,600 --> 00:38:41,480
All right to know the truth about the circumstances of their human rights violations and in the case of deaths or disappearance,

281
00:38:41,990 --> 00:38:50,270
the fate of the victims. The right also holds when the perpetrators have died,

282
00:38:50,810 --> 00:39:00,370
not being prosecuted or being granted amnesty, as was the case in Argentina between 1989 and 1990.

283
00:39:01,620 --> 00:39:09,590
Victims of human rights violations and their relatives may claim their right to truth until they die.

284
00:39:11,120 --> 00:39:15,410
But the right to truth is also a right of society at large.

285
00:39:16,520 --> 00:39:28,000
And because of the public interest in the truth. It's not strictly a strictly legal, but political, historical, historical, moral.

286
00:39:29,020 --> 00:39:39,950
You could say that historical interest to a proscriptive ability becomes virtually endless, regardless of how much time has gone by.

287
00:39:39,970 --> 00:39:44,080
It will never be too late to ask for the historical truth.

288
00:39:46,460 --> 00:39:51,110
In this way, justice can be done concerning what had happened in the past.

289
00:39:51,350 --> 00:39:56,660
And this also applies to the excesses that took place during the Dutch colonial wars

290
00:39:57,080 --> 00:40:06,320
and more specifically during the above mentioned military actions in Lombok in 1894,

291
00:40:07,010 --> 00:40:11,240
where in which lt could not kalayaan was involved.

292
00:40:17,090 --> 00:40:21,770
With regard to such painful episodes in the national history,

293
00:40:22,430 --> 00:40:29,329
it can no longer be maintained that historical events are to be seen strictly within their own

294
00:40:29,330 --> 00:40:36,710
historical context and to be judged exclusively according to the values and norms of the time.

295
00:40:37,840 --> 00:40:45,010
If only because painful episodes in history and uncomfortable historical events.

296
00:40:46,210 --> 00:40:54,640
Won't go away. They will continue to haunt us, forcing us to realise that the past is not over yet.

297
00:40:56,290 --> 00:40:59,380
Because justice has not yet been done.

298
00:41:00,670 --> 00:41:11,530
In this way, they live on in the here and now, influencing what we think or try to forget as well as what we do or don't do.

299
00:41:13,930 --> 00:41:16,480
In order to do justice to the past,

300
00:41:16,630 --> 00:41:26,350
we need to rethink the notion of anachronism and especially the linear conception of historical time on which it is based,

301
00:41:27,100 --> 00:41:32,560
a linear conception to which most historians still subscribe.

302
00:41:35,920 --> 00:41:43,990
Doing justice to the past requires a radical critique of this dominant concept of historical time.

303
00:41:45,250 --> 00:41:50,980
And such a radical critique has been offered by the French philosopher science Michel Sarah,

304
00:41:51,760 --> 00:42:02,620
who considers a linear notion of time to be naive and unrealistic because it only causes problems in how we think about historical processes.

305
00:42:04,000 --> 00:42:07,390
As he argues in no uncertain terms, quote,

306
00:42:07,960 --> 00:42:17,710
All our difficulties with the theory of history come from the fact that we think of time in this inadequate and naive way.

307
00:42:22,870 --> 00:42:33,760
The life and work of historical figures is continually being historicist by locating them outside the here and now,

308
00:42:34,390 --> 00:42:42,910
creating historical distance, despite the fact that in reality, says Sara.

309
00:42:43,660 --> 00:42:49,930
Few people and even fewer thoughts are completely congruent with the date of their time.

310
00:42:51,740 --> 00:42:55,130
Ideals, norms, values. They float.

311
00:42:55,850 --> 00:43:00,170
They move back and forth. In history, you cannot exactly locate them.

312
00:43:01,940 --> 00:43:05,690
The way is supposed to be in linear time.

313
00:43:05,740 --> 00:43:10,729
At first you had the Middle Ages and then you had the Enlightenment,

314
00:43:10,730 --> 00:43:19,460
and then you had the 18th century Ampere, etc. and then we had modernity, and then we had laid modernity.

315
00:43:20,120 --> 00:43:25,310
It is not when you look in actual detail how ideas develop.

316
00:43:26,930 --> 00:43:31,430
That is not exactly how history evolves.

317
00:43:32,510 --> 00:43:41,960
So rather than located historical facts and events on a linear timescale, Sarah proposes a multi temporal perspective.

318
00:43:43,040 --> 00:43:51,820
Explain. The right to historical truth demands that linearity be replaced with a more complex notion of time.

319
00:43:54,190 --> 00:44:02,950
And an example of such a complex notion of time is offered by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida,

320
00:44:04,210 --> 00:44:13,480
who treats time as spectacle, arguing that traumatic historical events like atrocities,

321
00:44:13,480 --> 00:44:25,150
massacres, human rights violations in the past, that they do not belong to the past, but continue to haunt us as spectres, as ghosts, to the present.

322
00:44:25,270 --> 00:44:29,640
They won't go away. They stick up their ugly hex heads.

323
00:44:30,100 --> 00:44:37,810
Every once in a while when when politicians, whether politicians like it or not.

324
00:44:38,980 --> 00:44:46,630
So as long as as as justice is done, as transitional justice hasn't run its course,

325
00:44:47,290 --> 00:44:56,109
as peace hasn't been created these days, these events of the past, they haunt our stay.

326
00:44:56,110 --> 00:45:07,089
They won't go away. And to capture that notion that the past is part of the present, Derrida talks about spectral spectral time,

327
00:45:07,090 --> 00:45:13,570
the spectral notion of time where past and present are intermingled, if you like.

328
00:45:16,330 --> 00:45:24,790
Now, some have countered that Derrida does not, in this way succeed in escaping linearity altogether,

329
00:45:27,070 --> 00:45:34,059
and therefore it might be preferable to follow elsewhere in his alternative, alternative,

330
00:45:34,060 --> 00:45:40,420
topical, topological notion of time for which he has the example of a handkerchief.

331
00:45:46,010 --> 00:45:58,240
I quote Michel, Sir, if you take a handkerchief and spread it out in order to iron it, you can see in it a certain fixed distances and proximity.

332
00:45:59,740 --> 00:46:07,270
If you scatter circle in one area, you mark out nearby points and measure far off distances.

333
00:46:08,410 --> 00:46:12,970
Then take the same handkerchief and crumble it by putting it in your pocket.

334
00:46:13,780 --> 00:46:21,310
Two distant points suddenly are close, even superimposed if further, you tear it in certain places.

335
00:46:21,340 --> 00:46:27,350
Two points that were close can become very distant as we experience time.

336
00:46:27,370 --> 00:46:33,850
It resembles the crumpled version much more than the flat, overly simple, simplified one.

337
00:46:35,140 --> 00:46:43,600
According to Michelle, Sarah Thyme is best be described as a topological sheet, which wraps itself around the world.

338
00:46:45,700 --> 00:46:52,660
Although it may be true that the reader's notion of spectral time did not succeed in escaping linearity altogether,

339
00:46:53,410 --> 00:47:01,300
and that Sarah's supple, adaptable, multi-directional notion of topological time is more realistic.

340
00:47:02,170 --> 00:47:06,760
I'd say that the notion of spectral time may still be useful.

341
00:47:08,380 --> 00:47:20,860
Indeed it reminds us it can shed some clarifying light on the complex and difficult relationship with the past as they emerge and emerge,

342
00:47:20,860 --> 00:47:35,040
for example, in transitional justice, where we have to deal with the past in these complex ways and and and try to to bring the past and and

343
00:47:35,100 --> 00:47:44,730
the present together in order for people to allow them to to live on and to live together in the future.

344
00:47:46,570 --> 00:48:00,670
So. And maybe in terms of criticism of linearity, there might be some shortcomings in that in the notion of spectral time.

345
00:48:01,180 --> 00:48:09,460
I think the two for for us as criminologist, we we can use both notions just to to be aware.

346
00:48:09,940 --> 00:48:16,780
First of time is not not linear and and and multidimensional and complex.

347
00:48:17,230 --> 00:48:27,010
And secondly, this spectral notion that that this this nonlinear notion of time is very useful for

348
00:48:27,010 --> 00:48:32,710
the spectres that haunt us when we're dealing with phenomena of transitional justice.

349
00:48:34,930 --> 00:48:44,889
I conclude that it does make sense to anachronistically consider events in the past as international crimes,

350
00:48:44,890 --> 00:48:51,190
regardless of whether or not contemporaries could consider them as such as international crimes.

351
00:48:51,790 --> 00:49:02,110
Obviously they couldn't. In order to try to understand the motives of the perpetrators of these crimes, which is what criminologists tried to do.

352
00:49:03,580 --> 00:49:08,470
We need to locate them in the social, cultural and political context in which they took place.

353
00:49:08,770 --> 00:49:19,750
So there I would go along with the ethno graphical historical perspective that you have to to also see them as children of their time.

354
00:49:20,620 --> 00:49:28,170
That you do try to understand the moral constraints, for instance, that they're that they're acting with them.

355
00:49:29,650 --> 00:49:34,910
But to judge the events in which they were involved,

356
00:49:34,910 --> 00:49:40,930
there is no reason to strictly limit ourselves to the values and norms that were held at the time.

357
00:49:46,930 --> 00:49:50,990
Strictly speaking. Yeah, that's this philosophy.

358
00:49:51,430 --> 00:49:59,170
Philosophers always do that. To to to to rewind conclusion and apply a conclusion to.

359
00:49:59,260 --> 00:50:00,640
To the argument itself.

360
00:50:01,180 --> 00:50:10,870
So strictly speaking, one could argue that giving up the linear notion of time renders the notion of Americanism itself senseless.

361
00:50:12,070 --> 00:50:13,650
Isn't that sophisticated, right?

362
00:50:14,590 --> 00:50:25,150
However, I do not want to suggest that we should discard the notion of anachronism entirely by declaring it itself senseless.

363
00:50:25,930 --> 00:50:31,450
I think it has a function, especially for for us, for non historians,

364
00:50:32,500 --> 00:50:41,020
because it serves as a reminder that we need to rethink the notion of time in order to do justice to,

365
00:50:41,200 --> 00:50:44,370
to the past, especially to the,

366
00:50:44,620 --> 00:50:59,440
the painful episodes in the past in our colonial history and in the past of military dictatorship and in transitional justice towards the past.

367
00:51:00,190 --> 00:51:09,460
Historical truth and justice require the application of both past and contemporary perspectives to historical events.

368
00:51:10,240 --> 00:51:21,070
Because even if historical crimes did not exist, did not yet exist legally, they could not at the time be understood as international crimes,

369
00:51:21,610 --> 00:51:34,390
the acts and events which these concepts to which these concepts refer now, they were historically they were committed in reality.

370
00:51:35,290 --> 00:51:46,240
So we cannot just argue, going back to the beginning of this talk, they didn't exist because people didn't have a name for it.

371
00:51:46,690 --> 00:51:56,320
You know, these atrocities took place in reality and we have to relate to them in terms of truth and in terms of justice,

372
00:51:56,800 --> 00:52:02,560
if only because not to do so also implies a moral stance.

373
00:52:04,360 --> 00:52:13,390
Retrospective moral judgements of past events are justifiable if those judgements have a sufficient factual basis,

374
00:52:13,960 --> 00:52:21,280
are carefully and reasonably made, and offer a contribution to public historical debate.

375
00:52:22,270 --> 00:52:33,819
Thus, if reflexively applied anachronism do make sense and may therefore be justified in the context of the

376
00:52:33,820 --> 00:52:45,490
work that we do in criminology criminal criminal law with regard to process of transitional justice.

377
00:52:47,110 --> 00:52:58,120
In short, it does make sense to define past wrongs anachronistically as crimes, even if most contemporaries at the time did not consider them as such.

378
00:52:58,750 --> 00:53:01,930
Moral judgements of historical events do not.

379
00:53:03,920 --> 00:53:12,290
Be solely to events need not be solely based on values and norms that were dominant in the past,

380
00:53:12,680 --> 00:53:22,160
but may and in fact must to take into account considerations that we have as contemporaries

381
00:53:22,400 --> 00:53:33,410
without running the risk of becoming a historically moralistic or senselessly anachronistic.

382
00:53:33,950 --> 00:53:45,020
Thank you. Thank you very much, Officer.

383
00:53:45,190 --> 00:53:46,890
Extremely thought provoking and.