Search

Collective memory after war, atrocity, and genocide may continue to bind surviving generations in a vortex of violence because remembrance of the cruelty is so vivid. Yet, collective memory as it was conceptualized originally is associated with constructive social change as society adjusts to a variety of kinds of forces. The Holocaust (1933-1945) as a model of genocide represents both an immense human tragedy and what happens at a breakpoint in the values sustaining society and collective memory. Holocaust survivor generations in Israel and Germany or elsewhere, however, have not succumbed to a cycle of vengeance after genocide and atrocity. International law may have influenced this outcome. It has played a major role in addressing human rights abuse and good governance of peoples and trade since 1945. Looking at the lived experience of atrocity and the importance of social processes that restore lives and community in the aftermath of conflagration, this article explores the interplay between collective memory and international law associated with World War II and the Holocaust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Akademik Orta Dogu is the property of Akademik Orta Dogu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The proportionality concept has gained little scholarly attention when it concerns Asymmetric Warfare. Yet its relevance has become imminent during the last Gaza-conflict whereby the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were facing an asymmetric adversary. Does the application of the proportionality principle merit a different legal approach in such a context? If so, can a contextual interpretation of said principle have a dual face? And what may be the consequences thereof for the application of superior responsibilities to be imposed on military commanders under International Criminal Law? These are pertinent questions of law which the author seeks to answer in this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]