•  
  •  

Scholar Commons > Open Access Journals > GSP > Vol. 12 (2018) > Iss. 3 (2018)

 

Abstract

Henry Rousso warned that the engagement of historians as expert witnesses in trials, particularly highly politicized proceedings of mass crimes, risks a judicialization of history. This article tests Rousso’s argument through analysis of three quite different case studies: the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial; the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia; and the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. It argues that Rousso’s objections misrepresent the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, while failing to account for the engagement of historical expertise in mass atrocity trials beyond Europe. Paradoxically, Rousso’s criticisms are less suited to the European context that represents his purview, and apply more readily to the highly-politicized crimes tribunals outside the continent. Finally, it contends that the importance of the proceedings themselves should be measured in full against the hypothetically corrupting effects of historians’ engagement as experts in court.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the role of the International Association of Genocide Scholars in forming a panel at the Thirteenth Meeting of the IAGS in Brisbane, July 2017, at which both authors presented. This conference marked the genesis of this article and collaboration. Rebecca would like to thank those in the School of Culture, History and Language, and the Department of Political and Social Change, both at the Australian National University, for comments on an earlier version of this paper. Mathew would like to acknowledge the support of the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst, and the Contemporary Histories Research Group at Deakin University.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.12.3.1566

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License

Download

Share

COinS