Staging Violence, Staging Identities: Identity Politics in Domestic Prosecutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trials for major human rights violations have frequently captured public attention and imagination. The 1963–1965 Frankfurt trial for crimes committed in the Auschwitz Extermination Camp was a focal point in the West German political landscape – despite or because of the trial's shortcomings. The 1985 trial of the Argentine juntas in Buenos Aires was broadcast on TV – without sound – and remains a key reference in Argentine political and legal culture. The 1995–1997 Berlin trial of the East German politburo members responsible for the policy of shooting people at the Wall provided a stage for trial participants and commentators to redefine their relationship to the vanished (East) German Democratic Republic (GDR) as part of a larger societal contestation about the relationship between East and West Germany. Transitional justice mechanisms have been seen as theatrical performances of state power, legality, and norms. They have been analyzed for their use of history, their commitment to legality, and their pedagogical aptitude. Yet the relationships between trials, the spaces of performance they offer, and various forms of identity politics that respond to experiences of violence are less well understood. This essay examines how participants in trials stage and represent identities based on ethnicity, race, region, or political affiliation. Trials reenact periods of violence and state repression in order to submit them to authoritative judgment. There are roles to be played in trials: judges, prosecutors, defendants, defense lawyers, and victim-witnesses, for example. In domestic trials, the main audience is composed of the country's residents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".