ensued. Anger and discomfort when discussing the Allied bombing were
more evident in those less able to explain why they were bombed. With
information comes control – or at least a feeling of control, of agency –
and the ability to deal better with disturbing memories.
1 Halls, Youth of Vichy France, p. 168.
2 Brown, French Children’s Literature, p. 192; T. Crépin, ‘ “Il était une fois un
maréchal de France…”: presse enfantine et bande dessinée sous le régime
de Vichy’, Vingtième Siècle, 28 (1990), pp. 79–80.
3 Brown, French Children’s Literature, p. 161.
2001); P. Giolitto, Histoire de la jeunesse sous Vichy (Paris: Perrin, 1991);
Lee, Pétain’s Jewish Children.
18 For example, N. Atkin, Church and Schools in Vichy France (London: Taylor
and Francis, 1991); R. Handourtzel, Vichy et l’école, 1940–44 (Paris: Éditions
Noesis, 1997); J. K. Proud, Children and Propaganda (Bristol and Portland,
OR: Intellect, 1995); P. Brown, A Critical History of French Children’s
Literature, Vol. II, 1830–Present (New York and Abingdon: Taylor and Francis,
2008). The volume J.-F. Condette (ed.), Les Écoles dans la guerre: acteurs et
Commemoration (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 29.
26 Winter and Sivan, War and Remembrance, p. 18.
27 Benjamin, ‘The storyteller’, p. 84.
28 S. Grayzel, ‘ “The souls of soldiers”: civilians under fire in First World War
France’, The Journal of Modern History, 78.3 (2006), pp. 595–6.
29 Brown, French Children’s Literature, pp. 194–8.
30 J. Horne and A. Kramer, ‘War between soldiers and enemy civilians,
1914–1915’, in R. Chickering and S. Förster (eds.), Great War, Total War:
Combat and Mobilization on the Western Front, 1914–1918 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000
Psychiatric Association, 2000).
43 J. Robinett, ‘The narrative shape of traumatic experience’, Literature and
Medicine, 26.2 (2007), p. 293, citing DSM-IV, p. 424.
44 M. Steinberg, ‘Les dérives plurielles de la mémoire d’Auschwitz’,
Centrale: périodique trimestriel de la vie communautaire juive, 260 (1993),
pp. 11–14, quoted in P. Lagrou, ‘Victims of genocide and national memory: Belgium, France and the Netherlands, 1945–1965’, Past & Present,
154 (1997), p. 184; M. T. Brancaccio, ‘From “deportation pathology” to
“traumatismes psychiques de guerre”: trauma and
Towards a re-thinking of legal justice in transitional justice contexts
María del Rosario Acosta López
“droit” in French.
2 While I mostly speak here from my own experience with the theoretical and
political discussions currently taking place in Colombia, I will be basing my
comments on a more general description of transitional justice situations.
The literature on this is extensive and I will not be referring specifically to
any particular theoretical posture, since my interest in what follows is to
draw exclusively from Menke’s own analysis. I am interested in pointing out
the similarities between his genealogy of the violence of the law –the stages
contextualising our argument within a surprisingly contemporary academic literature on political ritual; one that builds upon a much longer established body of sociological and anthropological work. From there, we offer our own heuristic through which to make sense of rituals, arguing that they: contribute to the orchestration of specific behaviours; are implicated in the constitution of reality; sediment their constructed realities via repetition over time; and, have a significant performative dimension. A third section then re-interprets these proscription debates via this
socialism. To counter such threats, proscription offered a simple expedience. For example, in the midst of growing popular unrest, France’s colonial authorities banned the Étoile Nord-Africaine, Parti Communiste Algérien, Front de Libération Nationale (FLN), the Organisation Speciale in French Algeria and Le Ressemblement Democratique Africain in French West Africa. Likewise, to head off insurgency in its colonial territories, British authorities banned the Kikuyu Central Association and the Kenya Africa Union and many other organisations including in Rhodesia, India
European integration as a system of conflict resolution in the Franco-German relationship (1950–63)
and raise the empirical question of evaluating ‘what difference it
makes whether Europe integrates’ (Scheingold 1970: 1002).
Despite the lack of consensus in the literature, a
comparative examination of the data suggests that public opinion in
France and Germany during the 1950s and the 1960s experienced similar
trends of rising approval for integration. Generational differences in
the two countries
Europeans unravel’, The Economist (1 August
There is an extensive literature on France-NATO
relations during this period. See, inter alia , M. Blunden,
‘France after the Cold War: inching closer to the Alliance’,
Defense Analysis , 9:3 (1993), 259–70; M. Meimeth,
‘France gets closer to NATO’, The World Today , 50
Throughout the long nineteenth century and
until 1939, ‘intervention’ (originally a French term) or
‘interference’ (the original British term) was
‘Protean’, covering an array of manifestations ‘from a speech
in Parliament by Palmerston to the partition of Poland’. 1 Not only was the scope of intervention wide, but
its meaning and consequences remained contentious.
The Argentinean diplomat and jurist Carlos Calvo points out, in his