Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

17 results

  • Changing Things so Everything Stays the Same: The Impossible “épuration” of French Society, 1945–2000

  • Edited by Nico Wouters
  • Book:
    Transitional Justice and Memory in Europe (1945-2013)
    Published by:
    Intersentia
    Published online:
    28 November 2017
    Print publication:
    27 February 2014, pp 63-94

  • Summary

    THE LEGACY OF EARLIER EXPERIENCES

    Since France experienced almost fifteen regimes between 1789 and the effective installment of a parliamentary Republic some 90 years later, she got used to political/military coups, purges, successive and always betrayed oaths and the rest – such as criminal punishment of followers of the fallen regime. So it happened during the French Revolution, when the guillotine was invented and much used, as it did after the revolution of July 1830 (High Court trial of Charles X's ministers in 1832), in 1852 following Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte's 2 December 1851 coup or in the bloody spring of 1871 aft er the decimation of the Paris’ Commune.

    In this respect, the period of WWI may seem quieter. Certainly, real or supposed spies were executed, as were soldiers accused of cowardice, desertion or mutiny. In 1917, Clemenceau's government decided to have former Premier Caillaux and former Home Secretary Malvy judged by the Senate meeting as a High Court for having expressed defeatist – i.e. pacifist – opinions. What happened after the end of the war, including trials for “collaboration” in occupied northeastern France or départements of Alsace and Moselle that had belonged to the German Reich since 1871 is not sufficiently known to the larger public to demonstrate any kind of collective trauma.

    If we search for the influence of earlier experiences on post-WWII transitional justice, we should therefore not look at the aftermath of the preceding conflict. It has both older and newer predecessors. As has been magnificently shown by Anne Simonin in her habilitation thesis, the main “innovation” of France's TJ after 1945, National Indignity (Indignité nationale, NI) has a long history in French criminal law, stemming from both revolutionary political justice of the 1790s and the Revolution of 1848 – and even further from Roman law civil death (civiliter mortuus). It should be remembered – as it was, for instance, by the public prosecution during the High Court trial of Vichy Premier Pierre Laval – that civil death could lead to actual death, since anyone could kill or injure such an ex-felon with impunity.

  • Anthropologie historique d’un massacre d’État*

  • Marc Olivier Baruch
  • Journal:
    Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales / Volume 62 / Issue 4 / August 2007
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 May 2017, pp. 837-852
    Print publication:
    August 2007

  • Quand, comment et pourquoi, hors situation de guerre ouverte, la police d’un État républicain se sent-elle en mesure de conduire sa mission de maintien de l’ordre jusqu’à laisser une manifestation se conclure par la mort de manifestants? Pour répondre à cette question, qui prolonge ses interrogations antérieures sur les modes de légitimation par l’État de pratiques d’espionnage et d’action secrète, Alain Dewerpe nous propose une étude de cas, particulièrement fouillée, de la manifestation parisienne qui, le 8 février 1962, vit huit personnes trouver la mort dans la station de métro Charonne. Largement fondée sur l’instruction très serrée conduite par la justice aux lendemains du drame, son analyse met en évidence la fermeté de la chaîne d’autorité qui, au sein de l’appareil d’État, anticipe, valide puis innocente la violence meurtrière; pour l’auteur, le pouvoir gaullien signe bien là un véritable massacre d’État.