ABSTRACT 

Title of Dissertation:                    PAST AS PROLOGUE TO PEACE IN POST-GENOCIDE  
CAMBODIA: A STUDY OF MEMORY CONSTRUCTION 
AND MEMORY EDUCATION BY THE EXTRAORDINARY 
CHAMBERS IN THE COURTS OF CAMBODIA AND 
CAMBODIAN CIVIL SOCIETY 

 
 

        Annie Rappeport, Doctor of Philosophy 2022 
 
 
Dissertation directed by:             Dr. Jing Lin, International Education and Policy 
 

                                                       
What societies choose to remember is one of the most crucial choices made in the 

aftermath of genocide. Reflecting on the Khmer Rouge regime and genocide from 1975-1979, 

the pioneering role of transitional justice and civil society in Cambodia have brought about new 

ways to remember and interact with the genocide. Memory and education have been a focal point 

in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), the hybrid tribunal tasked 

with bringing a measure of justice decades after the genocide. The ECCC has allocated 

significant funding and staffing towards outreach, education, and survivor participation 

opportunities as a means to address and contend with the Khmer Rouge genocide. The following 

study centers the experiences of those on the frontlines of the work being done at the 

intersections of transitional justice (ECCC), civil society and education. The research features 25 

in-depth interviews with key informants combined with a complementary document analysis. 

The findings show many relevant lessons learned in relation to outreach programs, victim-

centered transitional justice, culturally competent modes of reconciliation and education, 

participant centered archiving, the benefits of using performing arts and the function of moral 

and symbolic reparations in the Cambodian context.  



 

 

 

PAST AS PROLOGUE TO PEACE IN POST-GENOCIDE CAMBODIA: 
A STUDY OF MEMORY CONSTRUCTION AND MEMORY EDUCATION BY THE 

EXTRAORDINARY CHAMBERS IN THE COURTS OF CAMBODIA AND CAMBODIAN 
CIVIL SOCIETY  

 

 

by 

  

Annie Rappeport 

Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School,  
University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree in  

Doctor of Philosophy 
2022 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advisory Committee: 

Dr. Jing Lin, Chair 
Dr. Steve Klees 
Dr. Andrew Wolvin 
Julie Gabrelli, M.Arch. 
Dr. Erin Mosley 
 
 
 
 
 



 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

© Copyright by  
Annie Rappeport 

2022 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 ii 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Dedication 

 
I dedicate this work to…  

 
All the ancestors who came before me—My roots.  

 My parents Ginger Rodgers and Jack Rappeport—My giving trees.  
My mentors, friends, and kindred spirits – My forest.  

My students who I learn from every day – My Samaras.  
Jordan, my beloved– My gemel tree.  

Amelia, and Zelda – My future. 
 
 
 

And to all the participants who gave their time and entrusted their stories to me. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 



 iii 

Acknowledgments 

 I would like to extend heartfelt gratitude to my academic advisor, Dr. Jing Lin. Without 

Dr. Lin’s support, I have no doubt that I would not have completed my dream of obtaining a PhD 

and becoming a scholar in international peace studies. Her patience, wisdom and mentorship 

have made a world of difference in my life.  

 In addition, I want to thank the members of the faculty and administration who I have 

worked with throughout my time at the University of Maryland. I thank the International 

Education Policy program and faculty and staff for being my academic family and to the 

Government and Politics Department for being my second academic home. Thank you to all the 

departments that I worked with and collaborated with while serving as Graduate Student 

Government President, Vice President and as the President of the USM Student Council. As 

mentors and role models, all of you have contributed to the teacher and leader I am and hope to 

continue to be.  

A special thank you to the members of my dissertation committee for your time and 

thoughtful feedback on my research. I asked each of you to be on my committee because you 

helped me see the world in new ways and you continue to help my mind expand through new 

ways of thinking from the importance of listening in communication (Andy) to the importance of 

physical spaces and architecture in memory preservation (Julie). From connecting care for our 

natural environment and spirituality to peace (Jing) and for learning I actually enjoy economics 

(Steve)! Erin, I am so happy you are also on my committee as the one faculty member I found 

with the same interests in memorialization in post-conflict settings.   



 iv 

 A million thanks to my family. Words cannot express my gratitude for your constant and 

unwavering love through my highs and lows and various adventures. It would take several pages 

to list you all so just know I think of each and everyone of you with gratitude. 

 Thank you to Jana Over and David Harrington. You took a chance on me when you 

found me at UMD and invited me at first, into your home, and then into your lives. You are 

family to me. You provided the space and friendship I needed to thrive while calling College 

Park, Maryland a second home.  

 A large thank you to my fellow students and colleagues. Without you, I wouldn’t have 

had the transformative experience of being an elected representative and advocate as well as a 

teacher, researcher and administrator. Many of you have become dear friends and although I can 

only name a few, please know I admire you all. Special thanks to Danielle LaPlace, Nooruddin 

Shah, Joel Miller, Camille Fair, Brendan DeCoster, Amanda Fiore, Cameron Busacca, Ayush 

Pokharel, Michael Goodman, Luanjiao Hu, Natalie Vinski-Ibrahim, Allison Qiu, Rachel Lamb, 

Anne Corwith, Heidi Bloom, Tim Reedy, Julia Barr, Kara Korab, Hang Le, Jeremy Gombin-

Sperling, Emmanuel Wanjala, Nate Woodard, Xu Han, Q-Mars Haeri, Arsalan Siddique, 

Christina Goethel, Portia Buchongo, Aita Amaize, Laura McBride, Valerie Hall, Addie Dubey, 

Roozbeh Bakhshi, Dan Laffin, Karrin Thompson, Bernetta Reese, Laura Belko, Will Powell, 

Shawna Dias, Sarah Kilmer, Yun-Yun Peng, Erin Sorenson, Kyle Kastler, Tamara Allard, 

Autumn Perkey, Alec Dennis, Simon Sheaff, Matt Aruch, Moya Malcolm, Mohy Chari, Yvonne 

Harper, Benjamin Forrest, Roy Prouty, Lucinda Botlero, Polly White, Artur Perevalov, Siddhesh 

Ranade, Shakia Asamoah, Ediomo Eggah, Maddy McCaslin, Haley O’Reagan, Jessica Roake, 

Raino Isto, Vidhi Trevedi, Dan Alpert, Ireland Lesley, Jonathan Allen, Kislay Parashar, Kyle 

Dineen, Emily Berry, Marissa Hill, Jacek Garbulinski, Tanya Tetko, Vaibhav Dubey, Shivangi, 



 v 

Megan May, Jenny Greenwell, Aaliya Husain, Sharon Jeon, Mark Salman, Victoria 

Memarsadeghi, Klait Luc Ouattara, Wordda Aberra, Jake Witlin, Iris Yanes, Emmanuel 

Corporal, Anastasia Gevel, Hannah Bray, Roman Johnsonbaugh, Liza Sadykova, Ada Beams, 

Mira Varghese, Michelle Moraa Onchiri, Maura Beatty, Lily Dondoshanksy, Joe Calizo, Cori 

Carfagno, Blessing Enekwe, Valerie LaHoud, Sulma Guzman, Aaron Tobiason, Linda Macri, 

Christopher Perez, Kalia Patricio, Andy Fellows, Jay Thomas, Kristina Rubio, Yuki Shozaki, 

Gary Attman, Leonard Raley, Paul Mandell, Marsha Guenzler-Stevens, Patty Perillo, Linda 

Clement, Warren Kelly, Andrea Goodwin, James Bond, Francine Hultgren, Sharon Fries-Britt, 

Wanda Alexander, Ritu Agarwal, Britt Kirwan, Steve Fetter, Will Reed, Boris Lushniak, Greg 

Ball, Reka Montfort, Candace Turitto, Georgina Dodge, Laurie Locascio, Michele Eastman, 

Adrienne Lim, Jay Gilchrist, Tahirak Akbar-Williams, Marilee Lindemann, Ben Parks, Dave 

Eubanks, Chetan Joshi, Spiro Marinopoulos, Aderet Drucker, Nancy Shapiro, Zakiya Lee, Joann 

Boughman, Jay Perman. 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 vi 

Table of Contents 

Abstract ii 

Chapter 1: Introduction  

Background of the Problem 1 
The Meanings of Conflict 11 
The Meanings of Genocide 15 
International law and tribunals 23 
The ‘Order Versus Justice’ Line of Thinking 25 
Research Significance: Connecting Memory, Justice, Reconciliation and Peace 27 

A Note on the Diversity of Memory and Memory Negotiation 30 
Competing Narratives and Discourses 31 
Memorialization in the Cambodian Context 33 

 
Chapter 2: Comparative Post-Genocide Contexts 
 
Introduction 37 
An Overview 37 

Country Case Study Contexts 44 
Bangladesh 44 

Seeking Acknowledgement 45 
Decisions of the new government 49 
Educational and civil society response 51 
In sum 51 

Bosnia-Herzegovina 52 
International interventions and the consociational democracy 54 
Educational response 55 
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugslavia (ICTY) 58 
In sum 58 

Rwanda 59 
The Genocide 59 
Government response 60 
Educational Response 62 
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) 64 
In Sum 65 

Sri Lanka 66 
Government response 67 



 vii 

In Sum 70 

Summary of Relevance 71 

Chapter 3: The Cambodian Context 

Introduction 73 
The Urban/Rural Divide 73 
Mapping Divisions Using Educational Indicators 75 

Cambodian History 78 
The History of Hierarchies 78 
Occupations, Colonization and Unrest 79 
The Lon Nol Coup and the Vietnam-American War 84 
The Khmer Rouge Years 86 

Landmine Warfare 90 
The Vietnamese Occupation 91 
The People’s Revolutionary Tribunal 93 
The Early 1990s and Global Intervention 93 
Theravada Buddhism: Cambodian’s Spiritual and Cultural Tradition 95 

Theravada Buddhism and the Khmer Rouge 96 
The Clash of Buddhism and Khmer Rouge Ideology 99 

Gender Roles in Cambodia 102 
In Sum 109 

Chapter 4: Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: 109 

What Makes It Extraordinary? 109 

Introduction 109 
Legal and Political Backdrop 111 
Government and Civil Society 111 
NGOs and international aid 113 
How the ECCC Came to Be 114 
The ECCC Case Structure 117 
The ECCC public outreach, education, and reconciliation efforts 119 
What is Extraordinary About the Cambodian Model? 121 

ECCC: What Happens Next 124 

Memory Post-genocide 125 
Constructing and Negotiating Traumatic Memories 125 

Conclusion 127 



 viii 

Chapter 5: Theoretical Foundations and Research Methodology 129 

Introduction 129 
Overview 129 

A Global Phenomenon: Memory Contestations Around the World 134 
Purpose of the Study 139 

Research Questions 140 
Researcher Positionality 141 
Memory and Peace: Interdisciplinary Overlap 143 
Stories, Not Siloes - How I Listened, Adapted and Analyzed 145 
Qualitative Case Study 148 
Data Collection 150 

Participant Eligibility and Sampling Strategies 152 
Purposeful and Pragmatic Sampling 153 
Key Documents 154 

Limitations 155 
Data Analysis 157 
Ethical Considerations 157 
Narrative Meaning and Qualitative Coding 158 

Analysis of Narratives and Holistic Inductive Coding 159 
Documents 159 
Validity and Reliability 160 

Significance - Why These Stories Matter 161 

Chapter 6: Participant Profiles and Documents  

Introduction 163 
Overview 163 

Participant Profiles by Role 164 
NGO and Civil Society Leaders 165 
The United Nations 168 
Academics/Scholars 168 
Documentarians, Archivists and Journalists 169 
The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) 170 

Individual Narrative Profiles 171 
Children of War 172 

Soth Plai Ngarm 172 
Sophiline Cheam  Shapiro 174 
Khuon Det 176 



 ix 

Ly Sok-Kheang 178 
Minea Tim 181 

One Generation Removed: We Learned from the Stories 182 
Dara Hout 182 
Savina Sirik 183 
Vichear (pseudonym) 184 
Pheaktra Song 185 
Rithy (pseudonym) 186 
Sopheap Chea 187 
Sarath Richard Yourn 188 

The Diaspora 190 
Mike Siv 190 
Sothy Eng 191 
Mittapheap  (pseudonym) 192 

Non-Cambodians 193 
Elizabeth Becker 193 
Craig Etcheson 194 
Eve Zucker 195 
Bill Morse 196 
Laura McGrew 197 
Amelia (pseudonym). 198 
Catherine Filloux 198 
Remi (pseudonym) 199 
Elena Lesley 199 
Carmen (pseudonym) 200 

Coming Together to Form a Larger Story 200 
In Sum 201 

Chapter 7: Themes  

Overview and Theme Organization 201 

Document Selection Process 204 

Themes: Primary Research Question 209 
Theme I: Overall Perceptions of the Efficacy of the ECCC 211 

The Pros and Cons of the Hybrid Model 217 
The Problematic Location of the ECCC and the Outreach Response 220 

Theme II: ECCC Intentional Outreach and Educational Efforts 224 
Victim Centered Approach 226 



 x 

Victim Support Section and Civil Parties 229 
Testimonial Therapy 231 

Theme III: The Impact of Moral and Symbolic Reparations 233 

NGO and Civil Society Partnerships 236 
Theme IV: Complicating the Narrative through Dialogue and Critical Thinking 238 
Theme V: Reconnecting Elders and Youth: Intergenerational Dialogue 241 
Theme VI: Performing and Visual Arts 244 

Archival Efforts of the ECCC and Civil Society 248 
Theme VII: Digitization and online archival resources 248 

Noting the Additional Complementary Work of NGOs 253 

Themes: Secondary Research Questions 254 
How is reconciliation represented in Cambodia by civil society? 254 

Theme I: Reconciliation as a Western Concept 254 
Theme II: Mismatch of Western Justice with Buddhist Justice and Karma 256 

The Meanings of Karma, Merit and Buddhist Justice 257 
The Meanings of Reconciliation and Forgiveness 263 

Theme III: Co-Existence 266 
What Role Does Memory Construction Have in The Mission and Facilitation of ECCC And 
Civil Society Partnership Efforts? 270 

Theme I: Healing through Transparent, Inclusive and Participatory Archiving 270 
Theme II: Influencing the Creation, Preservation and Access to Memory 270 
Theme III:  Acting Out Memory - The Role of Performing Arts 271 
Theme IV: Memories as Foundation for Imagination 274 

Chapter 8: Implications 278 

Overview 278 
Implications for Transnational Justice and Transitional Justice Designs 279 
Implications for Archiving Difficult Histories 282 
Implications for Genocide Education: Curriculum and Pedagogy 284 
Implications for Peace Activists 286 

Looking Ahead - The Expressed Hopes and Concerns for Cambodia’s Future 290 

Cambodia  and the Wider Discussion of Effective Peacebuilding Post-Genocide 293 
Research Recommendations 294 
Continuing to Bridge Disciplines to Understand Complex Problems 295 
Need for Participatory Action Research 295 
Need for Longitudinal Research 296 



 xi 

Final Remarks 297 
Is Genocide Prevention Possible? 297 
References 299 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 xii 

List of Tables 
 

Table 1: The United Nations Definition in Article II from the United Nations Convention on the 
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) 
 
Table 2: Identified Environmental Factors Pre-Genocide (no particular order) Informed by 
(Etcheson, 2005; Hinton, 2005; Lesley, 2014; Totten, 2004) 
 
Table 3: Khmer Rouge Example Slogans and Sayings About Angkar with Connections to 
Buddhism (Khmer Rouge Texts are from Locard (2004)) 
 
Table 4: ECCC (partial) Timeline (Hinton, 2022) 
 
Table 5: Outline of the ECCC Cases with relevant dates, actors, and final determinations (ECCC 
website, 2022)  
 
Table 6: Summary of Documents Included in the Study with Relevance Explained 
 
Table 7: Participant Affiliated Organizations with Stated Purpose/Mission  
 
Table 8: Reparations for each ECCC Conviction to Date (Sources: The Center for Justice and 
Accountability Website 2022 and ECCC Website 2022) 
 
Table 10: The Hamber and Kelly (2004) Reconciliation Process 
 
Table 11: The Buddhist/Bhikkhu (2004) + Hamber and Kelly (2009) Reconciliation Process 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 xiii 

List of Figures  
 

Figure 1:  Aerial view showing bomb craters in the Cambodia Countryside and a map showing 
impacted areas  
 
Figure 2: Photograph of Children in 2005 Playing near a Buddhist Shrine near the Thai Border 
with Uncleared Mines 
 
Figure 3: Two photographs - the first depicts Hun Sen attending the Win Win Monument 
opening ceremony and the second is the Win Win Monument from an aerial vantage point during 
the inauguration 
 
Figure 4: Photograph of Cambodian Student Group Watching an ECCC trial 
 
Figure 5: Photograph of  Monks Visiting the ECCC to Watch Trial Taking Place behind a Shield 
of Bulletproof Glass 
 
Figure 6: The Array of Disciplines that Form Peace Studies  
 
Figure 7: The Array of Disciplines that form Memory Studies 
 
Figure 8: From Galletta (2013) The Semi-Structured Interview Format 
 
Figure 9: Photograph from Dhammayietra Peace Walk in 2005 Crossing Bridge  
 
Figure 10: Photograph - Sophiline Teaching Dance to Help Cambodia Heal and Restore Artistic 
Tradition  
 
Figure 11: Det Khuon at Phare Performing Arts School 
 
Figure 12: Ly-Sok Kheang Speaking to Visitors at Anlong Veng Peace Center in 2017 
 
Figure 13: Minea Tim Representing KdK at the Global Leadership Academy  
 
Figure 14:  Example DC Cam Project Authored by Savina Sirik  
 
Figure 15: Sopheap Chea Showing the Khmer Rouge History Mobile App on iPad  
 
Figure 16: Elizabeth Becker Testifying at the ECCC with Visitors Looking on 
 
Figure 17: Bill Morse in CSHD Uniform 
 
Figure 18: Visuals from the Document Analysis including Poster and Stills from Acts of 
Memory and Selected Pages from the You and I Graphic Novel 
 
Figure 19: Example page from the Khmer Rouge History Textbook 2020 Edition 



 xiv 

 
Figure 20: Poster of an ECCC Civil Party Event at Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum (2017) The 
exhibition featured portrait photos of civil parties holding up handwritten messages that the 
survivors want Cambodian youth to know and photograph of exhibit 
 
Figure 21: Testimony Being Read Aloud in Front of Monks, Community Members, Students in 
Battambang 
 
Figure 22: Monks Blessing DK Torture Survivor as Part of Bangkosol Ceremony TPO 
Testimonial Therapy 
 
Figure 23: Image from the Play Photographs from S-21 with actors Roeun Narith and Morm 
Sokly, photograph by Remissa Mak with Script Overlay  
 
Figure 24: Two Stills from the Video Recording of Phka Sla Krom Angka the first depicting the 
suffering of a woman at the hands of the Khmer Rouge and the second depicting a couple who 
were forced to marry but later stayed together and wished to marry out of love as elders 
 
Figure 25: One Example Page of Multiple Video Archives Digitized by ECCC 
 
Figure 26: Poster for Khmer Rouge History Mobile App  
 
Figure 27: Stills from Where Elephants Weep a Khmer Rock Opera that works to show the 
influences of the past on the present  
 
Figure 28: Photographs of Prisoners at Tuol Sleng are Well Known and Spark Visitors’ 
Imaginations. Catherine Filloux wrote a play based on imagining the lives of two prisoners  
 
Figure 29: Photos of Anlong Veng Peace Center Programs  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 xv 

 
List of Acronyms 

bEARN                   Bangladesh Education and Research Network 
CKS                        Center for Khmer Studies 
CPCS                      Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies 
CNRP                      Cambodia National Rescue Party (Main opposition party, abolished 2017) 
CPP                         Cambodian People’s Party (Hun Sen’s party) 
CSHD                      Cambodian Self Help Demining 
DC CAM                  Documentation Center of Cambodia  
DK                            Democratic Kampuchea  
ECCC                       Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia  
IAGS                        International Association of Genocide Scholars 
ICC                           International Criminal Court  
ICP                           Innovations in Civic Participation 
ICTR                        International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda  
ICTY                        International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 
KdK                          Kdei Karuna  
LICADHO               Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights 
LLRC                       Sri Lankan Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission 
LTTE                        Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 
MDG                        Millennium Development Goals  
MoEYS                    Ministry of Education and Youth Sport (in Cambodia) 
NGO                         Non-Governmental Organization 
NURC                      Rwandan National Commission for Unity and Reconciliation 
OSJI                         Open Society Justice Initiative  
PCC                         Paris Conference on Cambodia 
PAS                          Public Affairs Section (of ECCC) 
PAR                         Participatory Action Research   
PCA                         Permanent Court of Arbitration 
PRT                          People’s Revolutionary Tribunal 
PTSD                       Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder  
RSVP                       Rural Schools Village Program 
RUPP                       Royal University of Phnom Penh 
SCSL                       Special Court for Sierra Leone 
SDG                         Sustainable Development Goals 
SNC                         Supreme National Council 
SPMCC                    Srebrenica-Potocari Memorial Centre and Cemetery  
TPO                          Transcultural Psychosocial Organization 
UN                           United Nations  
UNESCO                 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 
UNTAC                    United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia  
VSS                          Victim Support Section (of ECCC) 
YfP                           Youth for Peace (Cambodia) 
YPSA                       Youth Power in Social Action (Bangladesh)



 1 

 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

Background of the Problem 

What a society chooses to remember is one of the most crucial decisions made in the 

aftermath of a genocide. The decision will inform national and individual identities for 

generations to come. Memory construction, negotiation, denial and forced amnesia have all been 

tried by governments and communities as a means to move on from the trauma of conflict. These 

varied approaches have all been justified in the name of collective healing, reconciliation, 

restoration, and peace. Yet the results of these approaches in isolation or in tandem have had 

mixed results. Transitional justice interventions through tribunals and truth commissions 

alongside initiatives of civil society organizations are seen as two key actors in post-conflict 

societies responsible for legitimizing traumatic history and aiding in peace, reconciliation, and 

atrocity prevention work (McCaffrie et al, 2018).  

As an important anchor to understanding my research, I now provide the purpose and 

significance of this case study. The purpose of the study in design and findings is to add to the 

holistic understandings of how transitional justice mechanisms and civil society organizations 

work together towards  reconciliation and positive peace processes after conflict. In this 

exploration, there is a focus on how transitional justice and civil society utilize memory 

construction and memory education of contested and difficult history in the post-genocide 

Cambodian context. In the Cambodian context, therefore, the focus is on the partnership projects 

facilitated jointly by UN backed tribunal— the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of 

Cambodia (ECCC) and Cambodian based civil society. These partnerships occur both in 

outreach endeavors related to spreading information about the ECCC to local Cambodians and 

through reparation projects recommended in the court rulings. The timing of this study aligns 



 2 

with the shift from the active trial period of the tribunal into the residual function and legacy 

phase. 

The ECCC is a hybrid court described as a Cambodian court working with international 

laws and personnel alongside Cambodian personnel. Through the combining of national and 

international aspects of law, the ECCC functions as a means to account for the suffering and 

provide a symbol of justice (ECCC, 2020). My qualitative examination explores the discourses 

surrounding how Cambodian people remember the Khmer Rouge history from 1997-2022 in 

Cambodia. My work seeks to understand perceptions of the traumatic history from varying 

generational perspectives and inquires if these perceptions of history are fueling reconciliation, 

peace and atrocity prevention. Alternatively, I also seek to see any patterns whereby dominant 

historical narratives may be fueling divisions within the society and reinforcing belief systems 

that may rekindle ethic and political violent conflict. My research is significant because it adds to 

the emerging assessment of the Cambodian transitional justice model, the Extraordinary 

Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), in a way not yet fully captured by the existing 

literature–through the work of peace makers. The entirety of this research effort is intended to 

illuminate areas where we (peace workers and educators) need to look, listen, and act. The 

questions aim to have key informants share which areas in justice, peace and reconciliation work 

need improvement. The whole endeavor gears towards action for positive peace informed 

policies and practice.  

My research is centered around genocide memory construction and negotiation as 

facilitated and funded by the ECCC (transitional justice tribunal) in partnership with Cambodian 

civil society. The Cambodian context wrestles with the tensions between former victims, 

perpetrators, and complex victims (individuals who both complied with the Khmer Rouge and 



 3 

suffered due to the regime.) Justice, reconciliation, and peace remain long term goals that 

multiple entities have devoted resources and time to achieving. The establishment of the ECCC 

in 2003 was viewed by many locally and internationally as a positive (though very late) 

progression to holding senior leaders accountable for the genocide. The ECCC model and overall 

context provide a unique milieu for further investigating the interactions and consequences of 

local and international law stepping in long after the crimes have been committed to provide a 

“measure of justice” for all Cambodians.   

The questions are explored through my qualitative research (case study) offer a chance to 

better understand the impacts of memory construction and memory education initiatives taking 

place three decades after the fall of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime. My constructivist study 

is built around 25 key informant interviews and a documentation analysis of outreach materials 

and reparation projects. 

There is one primary and two supporting secondary research questions. The primary 

research question is: How does the Cambodian hybrid tribunal (ECCC) facilitate peacebuilding 

and reconciliation through partnerships with Cambodian civil society that center around 

genocide remembrance? 

The secondary supporting research questions are: How is reconciliation represented in 

Cambodia by civil society? What role does memory construction have in the mission and 

facilitation of ECCC and civil society partnership efforts? 

The ECCC as a central organizational actor in the study is, in and of itself, a complex 

establishment with a controversial origin story. The ECCC is aimed at seeking  accountability for 

“Khmer Rouge senior leaders and those most responsible for the crimes committed during the 

period of Democratic Kampuchea from 17 April 1975- 6 January 1979” (ECCC, 2020). The 



 4 

work to create the ECCC took years after its initial establishment in 1997. The work of the 

ECCC as a mechanism for transitional justice in the country includes a significant education and 

outreach component. Education and outreach efforts are the primary tools to construct memory 

and facilitate a discourse for remembering. The ECCC and civil society partners are committed 

to a victim- and survivor- centered approach so that the Cambodian historical narrative feels 

more authentically Cambodian. This authenticity is in contrast to prior attempts to legitimize the 

post-genocide narrative which were dictated by leaders in the Vietnamese occupation, and later 

the avoidance of the past by the Cambodian government. The efforts were designed to connect 

memory and the act of remembering to the processes of healing, reconciliation, and peace 

building. The ECCC offices work in collaboration with the Documentation Center of Cambodia 

(DC CAM), a civil society leader in memory preservation and education about the genocide. In 

addition, the ECCC works with specific genocide memory sites through  educational study tours 

for Cambodians. The two main sites include the Tuol Sleng S21 Prison and Cheoung Ek (the 

Killing Fields). More recently, there are emerging claims that the recently erected Win Win 

Memorial and Archive will be added to the sites visited on the educational tours. However, the 

implementation of this remains unclear due to the pandemic and, more recently, the shift of the 

ECCC from the trial phase to the post-trial residual function phase. The residual function phase 

of the ECCC is seen across international ad hoc courts as a means to remain engaged with local 

communities to help ensure that the strengthened legal infrastructure is sustained and that 

reparation projects are followed through.  It is an opportune time now to focus on the work of the 

ECCC and their civil society partners to gain a fuller understanding of how memory construction 

is related to peace building, reconciliation, and transitional justice. This work also ties into the 



 5 

educational impacts the ECCC and transitional justice mechanisms can have in post-conflict 

settings.  

The work of McCaffrie et al in the 2018 report, So We Can Know What Happened: The 

Education Potential of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia went directly to 

university students, experts, educators, and policy makers to gather understanding related to 

perception of ECCC impact. Working with 83 university students based in the capital city of 

Phnom Penh and 16 educators, policy makers and experts, the research group determined that the 

ECCC has a great deal to offer and that more steps could be taken to realize the full potential of 

how the ECCC work may contribute to history education in the country. Now it is 2022, four 

years after the report and another two years since the publication of McCaffrie’s follow up article 

and I seek to build upon the understanding of how the ECCC works within its larger societal 

context to influence how Cambodians will learn about and remember the difficult and traumatic 

past.  

The Khmer Rouge regime exemplified the horror that can be manifested when fear is 

used as a tool to gain and maintain ultimate control over a country. Like many of the most 

infamous dictators in history, Pol Pot, the leader, and those who led alongside him, convinced 

themselves that they were in fact working in service of their country and people. Their 

philosophy was in the mold of “the end justifies the means.” Their means for building the new 

and better world they envisioned turned out to be deadly for nearly 1 in 4 Cambodians.  

The Khmer Rouge created a state dictatorship centered around a small powerful group 

cloaked in the facade of an all-powerful organization known as angka. Their newly named 

Democratic Kampuchea (DK) was anything but democratic and grew to be an unlivable 

dystopia. The beautiful lands of Cambodia were transformed into sites of mass killing and death 



 6 

with approximately 2 million dying due to execution, starvation, and illness, which saw the 

Cambodian population decreased by 21% (Cambodian Genocide Program, 2022). The resulting 

mass trauma continues to impact Cambodian society in detrimental ways, as tensions remain 

high, and traumas still linger. To counter these impacts, multiple approaches are being utilized to 

help heal people both at the individual and societal levels. The traumas inflicted by the genocide 

cut deep by ripping apart family units, the cornerstone of Khmer culture. What made the design 

of the Khmer Rouge “angka” concept especially cruel were the aspects that perverted the core 

values of their culture through new doctrines that idolized the new leaders and penalized the old 

ways. The Khmer Rouge abolished religion and education as the primary means to create their 

new proposed utopia. In lieu of pagodas and schools, the Khmer Rouge set up camps and re-

education programs for the purpose of indoctrination that replaced secular and religious learning. 

Furthermore, the family unit was torn apart to weaken the people and make them more fully 

afraid and dependent upon the Khmer Rouge leadership. Leadership that would lead the country 

into starvation and an autogenocide. The regime would have total control over the country for 

four years (1975-1979)  but wreak havoc for decades.  

After the regime fell in 1979, civil violent conflict continued for many years. The 

negotiation of memory related to the genocide was a sensitive and delicate matter. For many 

years the Cambodian government placed a moratorium on history education which essentially 

dictated memory avoidance. Though some Vietnamese-backed decision makers managed to slip 

lessons into the public curriculum that spoke of the Khmer Rouge in a villainous light, these 

examples appear to be few and far between.  

The initial inclination to avoid the past changed over time into a preference towards 

remembrance through oral history and survivor participation. However, some now believe yet 



 7 

another movement towards “forgive and forget” is gaining support-- in part because of the age of 

the accused. For example, journalists Titthara and Cuddy (2015) interviewed villagers where 

Meas Muth lived. Meas Muth, a senior leader in the Khmer Rouge was charged by the ECCC 

days before the article appeared in the Phnom Penh Post. The villagers in the article reported a 

reluctancy to see Muth, considered a ‘father figure’ go to trial as a man in his late seventies and 

who, by their estimation, had transformed the village for the better through his philanthropy. On 

a more practical level, some villagers feared that loss of Muth in the village would mean a loss of 

farmland for themselves. These very hard predicaments help to shed light on why some are 

leaning towards forgiving and forgetting past crimes even if the crimes were many and severe.  

Countering this perspective are studies conducted by scholars like Pham et. al. (2019), a 

group of public health experts, who report on their mixed methods research in the International 

Red Cross Review about the “knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes” Cambodians have of the 

ECCC. The data is pulled from nationwide surveys taken in 2008 and 2014 which are combined 

with data from civil party interviews conducted in 2010, 2011 and 2014. Their findings revealed 

a notable change between 2008 and 2010 in attitudes about “finding the truth” that are linked to 

the work of the ECCC. They reported: 

 The survey data show clearly that attitudes toward truth and memory changed 
considerably from 2008 to 2010…the period when the ECCC trials started and were 
accompanied by extensive civil society work. The changes from the first to the second 
survey are notable when considering attitudes toward pursuing the truth. In 2010, almost 
10% more respondents believed in the necessity of finding out the truth. The proportion of 
respondents who believed that people cannot reconcile without knowing the truth increased 
from 64% in 2008 to 81% in 2010…far more respondents in 2010 believed that people 
cannot feel better if they do not know what happened to their loved ones: 83% compared 
to 64% in 2008. This suggests that during the period when the first ECCC trial took place, 
Cambodians felt a change in their environment toward a greater possibility of openness. At 
the most basic level, the trial yielded details about the KR period that were previously 
unknown to many people. By giving a platform to at least some victims, the trial may have 
kindled a sense that it is possible to speak about the past and that this can be done safely. 
(p. 138) 



 8 

 As we can observe, Pham et al (2019) are able to show persuasive evidence that the Cambodian 

population does not want to bury the past—to forget what happened. Moreover, their study 

concluded that forgiveness is not a needed precondition to reconciliation. Their work cites 

McGrew (2011) and the idea that the level of reconciliation achieved thus far in many parts of 

Cambodia is “shallow coexistence.”  

As the above literature illuminates, public memory of the genocide in Cambodia is 

fraught with mixed sentiments. Memory construction and education endeavors, therefore, are 

tricky to implement in the Cambodian environment in ways that facilitate accurate information 

without destabilizing efforts to reconcile between former perpetrators, victims and complex 

victims. Memory construction at the individual, collective and public level are further 

problematic when the memories are centered around severe and widespread trauma yet to be 

healed.  

My research is adding to the scholarly literature in peace, memory, and genocide studies. 

I also hope that the insights gleaned from my research will be used to inform future practice in 

civil society peace work. My work is anchored in peace studies while drawing upon language 

and concepts from memory studies. My questions relate to how memory construction and 

memory education evolve within a post-conflict context. Of note, when I use the term “peace 

work,” I am speaking about the practical needs of understanding peace building methods to 

inform future policy and practice. My assumption is that memory is essential to transitional 

justice, reconciliation, and sustainable peace within a post-conflict community which aligns well 

with some pre-existing literature like Pham et al.  

My research, rooted in peace studies, is inherently interdisciplinary. Both peace studies 

and memory studies are themselves composite and emergent fields that center around holistic 



 9 

inquiry. The goal of this inquiry is to seek comprehensive understandings of phenomena and, 

eventually, provide applicable approaches towards a more harmonious world. Both memory and 

peace studies overlap in their inclusion of various complementary fields such as education, 

politics, history, arts/design, and psychology. These overlapping subfields will be drawn from to 

enhance how we ask questions and to understand the lessons found in the data.  

My research includes two main forms of qualitative data collection: in-depth interviews 

with key informants and a complementary document and media analysis (henceforth will be 

referred to as document analysis for brevity). The key informants were recruited using specific 

criteria to ensure a balance of expertise working in a diversity of fields that work across memory, 

justice, peace, and reconciliation. I selected individuals who have worked extensively in fields 

related to memory and peacebuilding in post-genocide Cambodia. The study examines what 

practices related to memory construction and negotiation are promoting positive peace (the 

presence of harmony) in addition to negative peace (absence of active violence and war) 

(Galtung, 1996). In addition, the analysis will be critical towards memory destruction, denial and 

manipulation, practices that foster neither positive nor negative peace, and often sow the seeds of 

future conflict. 

The interviews I conducted directly informed the collection of documents which I created 

for the study. Each document in the collection was mentioned by one or more of the participants 

and represented work created through partnership between the ECCC and civil society members. 

By documents, I refer not only to text-based resources but also to other mediums used 

intentionally by the ECCC and civil society partnership including film, dance, and mobile/digital 

formats. All documents are directly relevant to the research questions that focus specifically on 



 10 

the memory and peace efforts promoted by the transitional justice processes, established by the 

ECCC. The documents I collected are limited to the time frame of 2006-2022.  

I argue that my research is enhanced through its interdisciplinarity. Although this 

commitment necessitates navigation of the varying vocabularies used by peace and memory 

studies as well as their corresponding subfields, there is enriching wisdom in the diversity of 

thought and approach. It is validating to see commonalties across the aims of the fields to 

address problems in practical ways.  

Of note, my research works with both native Khmer and English speakers. The ECCC 

also works at all times in three languages: Khmer, French and English. These complexities 

necessitate a clear definition of terms which will be described at length and discussed from both 

western social science viewpoints as well as understandings rooted within the history, culture, 

and religion of Cambodia.  The methods section will provide further guidance of where the fields 

of peace studies and memory studies overlap and support the holistic modes of inquiry for the 

problem being examined. As part of this introduction, I include definition of the meanings of 

conflict and genocide as they are key to the Cambodian context. Later on, I have a chapter 

devoted to the meanings of peace, justice, reconciliation, and memory as varying meanings 

emerged during the research process. A combination of meanings from the Cambodian cultural 

and political contexts (when available), as well as contexts provided by the traditions of 

Theravada Buddhism, will be used to better situate these complex concepts. In addition to the 

local lens, understandings and meanings found in the international scholarship of peace studies 

and memory studies will be included. 



 11 

The Meanings of Conflict 

Conflict has many negative connotations, however, not all conflict is negative nor 

violent. conflict can also refer to holding up varying ideas and opinions to be considered and 

processed. Through nonviolent means conflict can result in stronger relationships, inner 

transformation, and the attainment of wisdom. Buddhism offers alternatives to violent conflict 

based on transformation of the self through compassionate interaction with others we may be in 

conflict with (Zalta, 2016). When conflict is embraced through ways that provide respectful 

resolution, violence can be avoided more often and more successfully. Many times, however, 

what attracts our attention is conflict that has grown into wide scale violence and destruction, yet 

conflict can be non-violent, constructive, and transformative. As peace worker Lederach (1996) 

explains: 

Over the past years the idea of conflict transformation has emerged in the search for an 
adequate language to describe the peacemaking venture…Transformation provides a more 
holistic understanding, which can be fleshed out at several levels. Unlike resolution or 
management, the idea of transformation does not suggest we simply eliminate or control 
conflict, but rather points descriptively toward its inherent dialectic nature. Social conflict 
is a phenomenon of human creation, lodged naturally in relationships…It is a necessary 
element in transformative human construction and reconstruction of social organization 
and realities. (pp. 17-18) 
 

This basis for understanding conflict as natural is seen in many fields and traditions. Conflict is a 

natural part of human interactions, a part that does not need to result in violence and loss of life. 

Transformative non-violent conflict is a key goal for many studying and working in peace. For 

the purposes of this study, I will focus on the understanding of conflict primarily from the 

conceptualizations provided by Theravada Buddhism and modern peace studies. 

Both nonviolent and violent conflict has occurred across the millennia in Buddhist 

societies such as Cambodia. These conflicts arose from attacks by other nations and from 

internal based conflicts across groups within a larger community. It is important to note that 



 12 

violence in conflict falls on a spectrum from mass and extreme deadly violence to non-violent 

conflict. Root causes for conflict from a Buddhist perspective are also important to understand. 

Zalta (2016) states that according to Buddhism, “…Conflict is the result of identity-related 

antagonism.” Buddhism names three “poisons” which are attributed for the cause of conflicts. 

These “poisons” relate to states of the self which can expand to be the states of entire groups or 

communities. These three poisons are greed, anger, and ignorance (Chhabra, 2004). Chhabra 

(2004) centers her study on the Buddhist concept of self pertaining to conflict. In addition to the 

three underlying causes (poisons), Chhabra elucidates further how these states are present: 

Issues at stake in conflict include land, power, respect and so on. Desire for these and 
resistance to change are functions of greed. In a conflict, greed is often magnified, as two 
or more parties seek their own gain at the expense of the other. The conflicts that result 
further compound the feelings of greed and anger, and thought patterns become hardened 
into attitudes of fear, hostility, and resentment. Conflicts also involve absolute and 
unchanging images of the self. The illusions of self lead all parties to cling to images of 
“self” and “enemy,” which also become hardened into fixed attitudes. In the Buddhist view, 
to bring peace and security we must transform these three poisons…into the three virtues 
of responsibility, compassion and wisdom. (p. 94) 

 
Chhabra (2004) illuminates the connections between poisons and virtues of the human 

being. Through her work we see the Buddhist understanding of conflict demonstrated as relatable 

concepts found around the world. In the Buddhist philosophy conflict, especially conflict that 

leads to violence, is something that grows from negative traits.  If left unchecked these traits 

become poisonous to the self and to others. Through active self-restraint and compassion, each of 

us can prevent conflict internally and externally by identifying our poisons and transforming 

ourselves to be more virtuous. With the Buddhist perspective on conflict there is always space 

for transformation and growth. The Buddhist perspective is also empowering, as the fundamental 

place for transformation and change is through the work of oneself (Zalta, 2016). We must be 



 13 

wary of gaining the “fixed attitudes” described by Chhabra (2004) that are based on illusions, 

and we must act with compassion in our conflicts to sustain transformation and realize peace. 

Though non-violence is the ideal in Theravada Buddhism, violence is understood as 

being necessary at times. In these cases, violence should be used sparingly, as a last resort to help 

another’s growth or to help protect the lives of the many. There is a precept found in the 

Theravada monastic code of conduct, the Vinaya, which clearly shows that Buddhism is against 

any actions that take away the life of another person (Swearer 1992). Not all violence takes life. 

Accepted and condoned violence in Buddhism is best illustrated through stories. Here are 

examples from Asanga and the Dalai Lama as shared by Kraft (1992): 

Many Buddhists recognize that a kind of violence is sometimes necessary to prevent a 
greater violence. The Dalai Lama tells a story about two monks sitting beside a rain-
swollen river, waiting for an evening ferry. A man who is quite drunk suddenly steps off 
the bank and begins to wade into the strong current, oblivious to the danger. One of the 
monks runs over and tries to pull him back, but the drunk man resists violently, until the 
monk’s only recourse is to knock the man out. In such a case, comments from the Dalai 
Lama, the monk who sat still and did nothing, behaved more violently than the monk who 
subdued the drunk man by force. Because motive and intention play a critical role, certain 
formulations can become a slippery slope. A compassionate person may even be compelled 
to kill someone, wrote Asanga in the fourth century C.E., if that is the only way to save the 
lives of many others. In highly charged situations that may lead to killing, only those with 
spiritual development of a buddha are deemed capable of deliberately abrogating the 
principle of nonviolence; the Dalai Lama declines to put himself in that category. (p. 6) 

 

The above examples are shared to convey the wide range of scenarios that call into 

question if, or when, any sorts of violent means are deemed appropriate to settle or prevent larger 

harm in the Buddhist tradition. What becomes clear is that violence is supposed to be only as 

forceful at the minimum levels required to help a fellow being save their life or to help protect 

the lives of many in a group. In all situations, non-violent means when available and effective 

should be used instead of violence.   



 14 

 Modern peace studies theorists, such as Galtung, agree that not all conflict is negative. In 

his seminal work Peace by Peaceful Means, Galtung situates peace in relation to conflict as, 

“…Peace is the context for conflicts to unfold nonviolently and creatively” (Galtung 1996, p. 9). 

Within the book’s introduction, Galtung posits that divisive conflict that leads inevitably to 

violence is rooted in culture and systems. Examples abound across the globe and across the 

millennia of intergroup conflict rooted in accepted societal divisions found in laws and cultural 

traditions. For instance, one very poignant illustration is seen in the fragile peace being 

maintained in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Ethnic and linguistic backgrounds are separated formally in 

government and in segregated school systems. This mandated separation of communities seeking 

to co-exist  have arguably led to the threat of renewed violent conflict (Farrey, 2021). The case 

of Bosnia-Herzegovina is detailed among the comparative post-genocide contexts in chapter 2.  

In some cases, systemically created and reinforced hierarchies may be accepted by the 

community, yet they remain detrimental to goals of democracy and equity. Inequalities imposed 

by laws and societal traditions lay the groundwork for violent conflict. Often, the systemic 

causes of the inequalities are denied by those benefiting from them and therefore often possess 

more power, freedom, and privileges without accountability. Galtung (1996) describes this 

process as one of legitimization of violence through culture. To create sustainable change 

requires transformation of the structures and the actors participating in the system.  Galtung 

asserts: 

Conflict is much more than what meets the naked eye as ‘trouble’, direct violence. There 
is also the violence frozen into structures, and the culture that legitimizes violence. To 
transform a conflict between some parties, more than a new architecture for their 
relationship is needed. The parties have to be transformed so that the conflict is not 
reproduced forever. (p. viii)  
 



 15 

Galtung brings forth an important problem faced by all working in the peace field: the 

prevention of violent conflict. Conflict prevention is often listed as a goal of memory sites that 

are dedicated to conflict victims and survivors. To give a stronger sense for how the Cambodian 

case is situated among other historic examples I include a chapter (Chapter 2) on comparative 

contexts that includes Bangladesh, Burundi, Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, and Sri Lanka.  

The Meanings of Genocide 

The Cambodian people have endured many forms of violent conflict, but none more 

devastating than the genocide during 1975-1979 that broke apart families, mandated forced 

marriages, created labor camps, and tortured and executed hundreds of thousands of people. By 

the end, the very fabric of communities had been unraveled. While as many as 2 million lives 

perished, no survivor was unaffected by the loss of loved ones and by the repercussions from 

forced evacuations, family separation, forced marriage, the loss of artists, scholars, physicians, 

educators, and elders. Why were the atrocities in Cambodia recognized as a genocide by the 

international community? Though it may seem obvious, the recognition was hard fought as 

genocide is first and foremost a legal term and one with complex and nearly impossible criteria 

to prove.  

The term genocide was coined in a 1944 book by the Polish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin in 

response to the actions of Nazi Germany during WWII. It would become a recognized legal term 

in 1946 and a codified independent law in 1948 (The United Nations Office on Genocide 

Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, n.d.). The time spent in between these steps was 

consumed by arguments and negotiations about what ought and what ought not be included in 

the law which would be international in scope. The United Nations Convention on the 

Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide raised the category to international 



 16 

recognition in 1948 with the following outlined definition found in Article II. The content is the 

result of several negotiations between the UN country members.  

Table 1 

 The United Nations Definition in Article II from the United Nations Convention on the 

Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) 

Article II 

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent 

to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 

(a) Killing members of the group; 

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its 

physical destruction in whole or in part; 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 

  

The United Nations definition is deemed by some to be too broad in scope and by others 

as too narrow. Lemarchand (2008) shares that the criteria “defy precise measurement” while 

providing “analytic touchstones.” There is acknowledgement by the United Nations that intent is 

an especially difficult criteria to discern. This is due to the nature of intent being subjective and 

rarely confirmable (United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and Responsibility to Protect, 

n.d.). Other issues have arisen as incidents challenge and shift the interpretation of the definition. 

Ratner (2007) in the piece Can We Compare Evils? The Enduring Debate on Genocide and 

Crimes Against Humanity, explains how the differences in international law addressing genocide 



 17 

versus crimes against humanity came about and how the current rules do not best fit the purposes 

and needs of the world. By the end of his arguments, Ratner suggests an approach that I would 

agree with whereby genocide is defined both by domestic laws and international law with the 

latter becoming broader to address more of what is being seen in genocides around the world.  

One example of an internationally recognized genocide that does not fit perfectly within 

the legal definition is Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia is technically an 

autogenocide. An autogenocide is used to describe a genocide where the groups were of the same 

ethnicity but differed in another way. In this case, Cambodians differed politically and in 

socioeconomic background. Political ideology is not included in the UN definition and therefore, 

arguably, not protected (Totten, 2004).  In spite of the exclusion of “political” as a type of 

identity protected by the legal definition, many have opposed this choice though the legal 

definition has not been successfully changed (Kuper, 1981). Regardless, the United Nations’ 

definition is the typical reference point used to determine which atrocities empirically pass the 

threshold to be deemed by the international community as genocide. 

The term “genocide” brings to mind images of gas chambers, killing fields, concentration 

camps and mass graves. Although there is often a sense in the minds of the public of what a 

genocide is, the term itself is fraught with controversy (Power, 2002). This is in large part 

because in order to fit the legal definition an almost impossible standard needs to be satisfied. 

This nearly impossible standard is that of proving that the intent of the perpetrators is to 

exterminate the victim group. This is why it took so long for the Rwandan genocide to be 

appropriately titled, much to the dismay of many. Such a rigid definition can actually do harm 

and result in delayed interventions that could save lives. Currently, similar arguments are 

ensuing over whether or not the actions of Russian troops in Ukraine fit the legal definition of 



 18 

genocide (Hook, 2022, Sen, 2022). The label is being given by informed observers and leaders in 

Europe, but not surprisingly wholly denied by Russia. Only time will tell if lessons were learned 

from Rwanda and a genocide determined in time to help save lives. Some communities still 

struggle for the international recognition that they survived a genocide. For example, in 

Bangladesh where the struggle for international validation persists decades later. These debates 

are especially tense if perpetrators of the genocide actively deny and dismiss the atrocity to serve 

their own interests (Totten, 2004). 

 Setting scrutiny aside, let us turn to the term genocide and why such a term was brought 

into existence by Lemkin in his 1945 book entitled Genocide- A Modern Crime. In his book, 

Lemkin justifies the creation of genocide as a tragic word that will enable international law to 

address acts of genocide as an international crime. Specifically, he calls for the need of the new 

term and corresponding law to hold Germany accountable for “international premeditated 

murder.” Lemkin created the word genocide by combining the Greek word “genos” meaning 

race/kind and the ending “cide” meaning “a killing” (Lemkin, 1945).  In his pivotal 1945 work, 

Lemkin argues in favor of adding genocide to the international vocabulary by asserting:  

Hitler was right. The crime of the Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole 
peoples is not utterly new in the world. It is only new in the civilized world as we have come 
to think of it. It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it. It is 
for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.”...the term does not 
necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that. More often it refers to a 
coordinated plan aimed at the destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national 
groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end 
may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the 
culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion…Genocide 
is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only 
secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong. (p. 39) 
 

 
Lemkin did not live to see the fruition of his labor, but the word genocide is now 

internationally known and used in a legal sense and, more broadly, to describe atrocities that may 



 19 

or may not fit the “letter of the law.” There are now genocide scholars who study the Holocaust 

and the prior Armenian genocide (which occurred prior to the Genocide Convention) as well as 

various genocides that have happened since the Holocaust. There is an international organization 

devoted to the scholarship of genocide known as the International Association of Genocide 

Scholars (IAGS) which held their first conference in 1982 in Jerusalem (IAGS website, 2020.) 

Looking to the present, the list of genocides of the 20th and 21st centuries reaches nearly every 

continent and is a “…phenomenon crossing cultural and national boundaries” (Totten, 2004: 

250.) Even in 2022 there are several active conflicts that have been officially labeled a genocide, 

and others that might qualify. According to leadership in the United States as communicated by 

the Report to U.S. Congress Pursuant to Section 5 of the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities 

Prevention Act of 2018 (2021) there were 6 genocides going on in 2018. Many of these are 

genocides based on religion, like those occurring against Yezidis, Christians and Shia Muslims 

in Iraq and Syria as well as genocides against Muslims in Myanmar and China. Other named 

genocides include ethnically based atrocities against Ethiopians by Eritrea and against Sudanese 

minorities by the Sudanese government. We may now have a term and a codified law, but 

genocide as an act has yet to be prevented.  

The creation of a definition for genocide was a hard-fought battle for Raphael Lemkin. 

Lemkin, troubled by the atrocities committed against Armenians, sensed danger for his own 

European Jewish community in the years before WWII.  He chose to leave and go to the United 

States. Though he tried mightily to convince others to leave as well, his arguments failed to 

persuade family and friends that they could soon be the targets of mass violence (Power, 2002). 

Lemkin looked on from the United States in dismay as Hitler gained power and millions were 

imprisoned and executed. Lemkin devoted his life to stop the impunity of national governments 



 20 

committing mass atrocities including genocide. He saw the respect of sovereignty going too far 

when it inevitably offered impunity to these leaders.  Therefore, Lemkin devoted his life to 

creating a term for the crimes perpetrated during WWII as well as the atrocities committed 

against Armenians. Through the creation of an international law and legal definition of genocide, 

Lemkin saw a glimmer of hope.   He saw a path forward toward internationally backed legal 

accountability measures (Irvin-Erickson, 2016). 

With the credibility bestowed by the United Nations, new ways of thinking about conflict 

came into existence. One area of consensus is that genocides are an international crime requiring 

internationally enforceable law. As a transnational issue, more and more countries seek 

international assistance in both seeking justice for and prevention of genocide. Across the 

literature, there are informal clusters of similar characteristics (known as typologies) used by 

genocide scholars to dissect and better understand the most likely contributing factors to a 

genocide. These typologies seek to ascertain how extreme ideologies gain popularity as well as 

how a level of tolerance/acceptance can be observed when the genocidal acts take place.  

Patterns are being sought in the hopes that common causes can be identified. Once identified, 

these catalysts can then be resisted, slowed down, and in the best of scenarios, stopped, thereby 

preventing genocidal acts. As Huttenbach (2004) explains, “To locate the beginnings or roots of 

genocide in the near and more distant pasts is a much-desired skill. What prompts this is the hope 

that by uncovering the causality of an event one can project…then one might come closer to 

anticipating and, thereby, preventing a future genocidal crisis” (p. 245). The way Huttenbach 

describes the dream of a skill set for effective prediction makes the goal seem elusive. This is 

because with each emerging pattern, there are also exceptions, “One past may culminate in 

genocide; another will not” (p. 245) is true for many factors. For instance, civil wars are known 



 21 

as an influencing factor in some genocides, but not every civil war results in genocidal incidents. 

Yet, it is still worthwhile to reflect, analyze and seek understanding across pre-genocide contexts 

in developing peace building initiatives and curriculum. Some central links identified in the 

literature include but are not limited to those included below. 

Table 2: Identified Environmental Factors Pre-Genocide (no particular order) Informed by 

(Etcheson, 2005; Hinton, 2005; Lesley, 2014; Totten, 2004) 

Environment Factors 

Economic instability and/or crisis 

Political instability and/or crisis 

Ideological shifts to the more extreme (especially towards nationalism) 

Extremist rhetoric, widespread propaganda 

Presence of paranoia and perceived conspiracies 

Pluralistic societies with ideological differences (expressed through 
culture, religion, politics) 

Foreign influences 

Desire for retribution/revenge 

  

The above characteristics are found across numerous genocide contexts including the genocides 

occurring in present day. These traits are used to identify countries at risk by organizations such 

as the well known Genocide Watch. In addition, there are typologies addressing genocide 

response. Response trends are worth comparing in order to halt current violence and prevent 



 22 

future violence. Across the response spectrum there appears to be a struggle to balance 

“remembering and forgetting” (Lesley, 2014). Let us look at some of the most seen approaches 

to memory construction of post-genocide with real world examples.  

Attitudes and approaches to memory construction are non-linear. Communities affected 

by genocide may begin with one approach and then shift to another. There are many options 

including ones that centralize remembering in order to heal and others that emphasize forgetting 

in order to move on. There are also approaches that have more overt political implications such 

as formal acknowledgments of suffering as acts of diplomacy and peacemaking. Tragically, 

another approach seen throughout contexts is genocide denial. Genocide denial can and often 

does begin while the genocide is happening. As Mulaj (2021) argues, “Denial accompanies the 

unfolding of genocide” and they go on to invoke the example of the Srebrenica massacre during 

the genocide in former Yugoslavia (Bosnia-Herzegovina):  

 …In those fateful days of July 1995, the war indicted criminal—then army General 
overseeing Serb operations—Ratko Mladić told the press that the Serb takeover of the UN 
safe area was done to neutralize Muslim terrorists, fictitious operations of the Army of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina (‘ARBiH’) against Serb civilians. He used the notion of 
‘necessity’ to justify atrocities. Then in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, from 
September to November 1995, a massive cover-up operation was undertaken …[moving] 
dead bodies from original mass graves to secondary, secret locations. For years following 
the fall of the enclave, Serb leaders in Bosnia and Serbia even promoted the lie that killings 
in Srebrenica had been committed by ARBiH. As evidence of the truth emerged from court 
proceedings at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’), the 
Serb elite in Republika Srpska (‘RS’)—the Serb-ruled entity in Bosnia—and the Republic 
of Serbia gradually moved to a form of interpretative denial… (pp. 160-161) 

 

The above example demonstrates both how insidious genocide can be and how tribunals are one 

means of countering genocide denial strategies.  

With some communities there is a sense of obligation to remember. This is seen very 

much in Rwanda, Namibia and across the Jewish diaspora. Other communities support a national 



 23 

narrative that seeks to “move on” in order to heal.  For these communities, forgetting is seen as a 

necessary and pragmatic choice for their survival and recovery. This approach has been seen at 

various times in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Cambodia.  

International law and tribunals 

The first means to settle cross border legal issues was established in 1899 during the 

International Peace Conference. The mechanism established, the Permanent Court of Arbitration 

(PCA), stirred into action beginning in 1902 and having its “heyday” from 1902 until the start of 

WWI (Haensel, 2015, Tams & Malgosia, 2013). The PCA predated both WWI and WWII and 

therefore, also predated the League of Nations (1919). The PCA is considered a predecessor to 

the UN International Court of Justice though Tams and Malgosia (2013) warn that the PCA does 

not resemble a court how many of us envision as it has no judges or permanent bench, however, 

it still acts as a milestone for the turn to thinking of international accountability and dispute 

settlement measures. The PCA still exists today and identifies as an “intergovernmental 

organization providing a variety of dispute resolution services” (PCA Website, 2022). 

 Two other key turning points were the formation of the League of Nations in 1919 and 

the United Nations (1945). With the formation of the latter, the hope was as Hanhimaki (2008) 

argues to “create an organization that would, indeed, be a definite guarantee of peace” (p. 13) 

and to “prevent that “scourge of war” from descending upon mankind yet again” (p. 17).  Since 

WWII and the establishment of the UN, interest in defining transnational crimes and 

implementing accountability mechanisms beyond the want or capability of national legal systems 

has grown. With hopes of building an international culture that holds perpetrators of atrocity 

accountable when domestic state courts will not. Further, to provide models for rule of law that 



 24 

will deter future attempts to commit atrocities and genocidal acts. One specific tool utilized by 

the UN for transitional justice has been international tribunals.  

After WWII and the fall of the Axis powers, there were international military tribunals in 

Germany (Nuremberg trials) and Tokyo (International Military Tribunal for the Far East). These 

trials were not backed by the UN (Steinke, 2012).  After these, no more international tribunals 

for war crimes would occur until the 1990s (Potts & Kjaer, 2016). In the 1990s, the UN would 

spearhead and support two international war crimes tribunals.  Both tribunals were tasked with 

addressing genocide. The first, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 

(ICTY) , opened in 1993. The second would open just two years after, the International Criminal 

Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), in 1995. The Special Court for Sierra Leone  (SCSL) would be 

next, opening in 2002. 2002 would be yet another milestone year for the solidification of means 

to address violations of international law and threats to global peace as it would be the year of 

establishment for the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

  The ICTY and ICTR became precursors to the establishment of the International 

Criminal Court (ICC) in the early 2000s. The ICC was formally established in 2002 as part of the 

Rome Treaty following the ratification of 60 United Nations member states. Thus far, the ICC’s 

pursuits for justice have yielded mixed results, drawing both praise and criticism. What the 

development of the ICC makes clear is that societies seek justice for a multitude of reasons, from 

accountability towards closure and healing, to deterring future perpetrators.  

Looking broadly at the sister tribunals of the ICTY, ICTR, SCSL and ECCC, it is 

important to keep in mind the limits of the tribunals from the onset. The instances where 

international tribunals have formed represent some of the most well known and large-scale 



 25 

atrocities with thousands to millions of murder victims and victims of torture, rape, and other 

heinous crimes. With the sheer volume of crimes, it becomes impractical (and arguably 

infeasible) to directly translate the goals of domestic courts that seek retributive justice at the 

international level (Steinke, 2012). Instead, only a fraction of crimes may be adjudicated, and 

perpetrators convicted. As Steinke (2012) explains, “...Retribution remains painfully incomplete 

when the overwhelming majority of mid-level perpetrators will, inevitably, not be processed in 

the international forum at all” (p. 9). This helps to understand why the international tribunals 

have focused largely on accurately documenting and accounting for the crimes and providing 

educational functions.  

The ‘Order Versus Justice’ Line of Thinking 

Sometimes retributive justice is seen as less important to the well-being of the country as 

a whole when the process may reincite violence and threaten stability. This argument was used 

often by the government of Cambodia and Prime Minister Hun Sen (who has led the country for 

37 years and counting.) Reported by Naren (2015) in The Cambodia Daily, Hun Sen “...Has long 

insisted that no more than five Khmer Rouge figures should stand trial” at the ECCC underlining 

his argument with speculation of civil war should the ECCC go “beyond” their limits. Prime 

Minister Hun Sen’s line of thinking may account for the lengthy amount of time between the acts 

of atrocity (1975-1979) and the establishment of the ECCC. It may also explain why the 

government pressed for the stopping of convictions time and time again citing a need to protect 

fragile peace (absence of violence) and stability (Etcheson, 2021). 



 26 

Cambodia is not isolated in this tension between seeking justice and seeking stability. Not 

all newly established leaders in the aftermath of genocide leap with open arms towards the UN 

for support in reinstating a rule of law. It can be a precarious proposition for national 

governments who are carefully teetering between stability and violent conflict to be persuaded 

by the benefits offered by UN backed tribunals. Moreover, the newly established leaders may see 

the tribunal as a threat to their own positions because the trial process will “anger” and “incite 

violence” from the past regime and those who supported the past regime (Mobekk, 2005). 

National governments in the aftermath of genocide are often fragile and afraid of losing their 

tenuous control to keep order. As a result, as is observed in Cambodia, difficult compromises are 

made to maintain stability and negative peace between opposing factions. These compromises 

contradict the intent and work of international tribunals to bring a measure of justice to the most 

responsible perpetrators of atrocities and genocidal acts. When national governments do 

compromise with former perpetrators and avoid seeking legalistic justice for the victims, 

negative consequences are inevitable. In Cambodia, wounds felt by victim survivors did not heal 

as years went by without formal means to acknowledge suffering, deal with traumatic memories 

or reconcile with one another. 

Outside of international law interventions, there are also examples of how national 

decisions that go too far in the direction of forgiving and forgetting are proceeding down a path 

that leaves wounds open, unattended, and festering. These festering wounds can (and often do) 

lead to more violent conflict resurfacing quickly or after a generation. Turning to the Rwandan 

context, we can explore how time does not necessarily heal wounds. To the contrary, wounds 

that are not tended to and are left to fester can grow worse over time.  



 27 

The Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 has many efforts related to 

commemorating the genocide including Kwibuka, a 100 day long remembrance period and six 

national memorial sites. This is in stark contrast to the events in 1972 in Burundi. Interestingly 

enough, the remembrance strategies in Rwanda are seen by some as creating a paradox in the 

society. On the one hand, the government has developed policies for national unity including 

ethnic “non-recognition”  which entails punishments for “divisionist” behavior including using 

the terms “Hutu”, “Tutsi” or “Twa.” The only acceptable way to identify is as Rwandan. These 

policies came to be codified in 2001 and enshrined in the new constitution in 2003 (Kamanzi 

(2021, Nyseth Brehm, 2017). These policies exist in paradox to the many government-facilitated 

efforts to remember the genocide in terms of Hutu as perpetrators and Tutsi as victims/survivors 

which is leading to what Baldwin (2019) refers to as “survivor nationalism.” 

Research Significance: Connecting Memory, Justice, Reconciliation and Peace 

The often-repeated global mantras surrounding genocide, “never forget” and “never again” 

are easy enough to remember and repeat. Unfortunately, the phrases feel empty to the millions of 

people in countries affected by ongoing atrocities. Even in 2022 there are multiple genocides in 

progress across the world. The Russian government is trying to erase the Ukrainian national 

identity through re-location and executions. It has not taken long for leaders in the international 

community including the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States to 

realize and identify the Russian violence as nearing a genocide (Knickmeyer, 2022). While 

evidence is being sought after to prove a genocide in Ukraine, elsewhere ongoing genocides have 

been confirmed.  

For example, the Muslim communities in China (Uyghur) and Myanmar (Rohingya) are 

victims of acts of genocide including sterilization, torture, imprisonment, and execution by their 



 28 

own governments. There is ethnic cleansing taking place in the Western Tigray area of Ethiopia 

by Eritrea and in Sudan by the government against ethnic minorities. ISIS is confirmed to have 

committed genocide against Yezidis, Christians and Shia Muslims in both Iraq and Syria. These 

are just the atrocities that have been confirmed by the US Government (Report to U.S. Congress 

Pursuant to Section 5 of the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, 2021).  

“Never forget” and “never again” grew in usage after WWII and the Holocaust with similar 

sentiments being said in many post-genocide societies. These may be catchy phrases we find easy 

to remember and to support; however, as time has shown us, remembering simple details of past 

genocides has had little effect of preventing new ones. If anything, oversimplification of violent 

conflicts can fuel continued angst and desire for retribution. We need to continue monitoring the 

contributing factors of genocide and think about how better informed interventions can work to 

prevent genocides. Right now, even some of the most costly efforts seen in the aftermath of 

genocide to prevent future atrocities, tribunals, are flawed through multiple limitations on the 

scope of authority and the options for sentencing and reparations.  

The global effort to prevent genocide will remain ineffectual so long as laws are 

unenforceable.  The Genocide Convention outlines many criteria including the nearly impossible 

to prove “intent” which means many perpetrators can get away with atrocities as they unfold and 

for years afterward. Turning the “never again” hopeful rhetoric into the tragic reality of “again and 

again.” A central theme of the efforts to understand and teach genocide is the ongoing struggle 

between knowing how much to remember versus how much to let go. Collective suffering is a 

reality, but how much of it can be lessened through sharing? How, through informal and formal 

methods of pedagogy, might we learn levels of empathy and compassion needed in a society to 

prevent dehumanization, scapegoating and ideas of superiority that are used to justify murder? 



 29 

The challenges presented in the Cambodian case can offer wisdom towards understanding 

how transitional justice and civil society work in tandem and in partnership in the aftermath of 

genocide. I strive for my research to build upon the works by McCaffrie (2022), Pham et al (2019), 

Sirik (2020), Hinton (2022), Lesley (2014), Etcheson (2020) as well as the work of civil society 

actors featured in my study including Kdei Karuna, Bophana, DC Cam and TPO that all contend 

that memory construction and education is central to Cambodian efforts to heal after mass 

collective trauma and to practice a culture of peace inclusive of atrocity prevention.  Civil society-

driven projects such as commemorations, memorials, museums, digital archives, libraries, art, 

tours and collected oral histories are informal (outside of school) means of transferring memory 

and knowledge. In Cambodia, the joint international and national hybrid tribunal known as the 

Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) works actively in partnership with 

Cambodian civil society to realize symbolic and moral reparations.  

 The partnerships between the ECCC and Cambodian civil society are numerous and 

varied.  Both the ECCC and civil society actors assert the importance of survivor and witness 

memory. Both also assert the connection between memory preservation and integration of memory 

into education as essential to justice, reconciliation, and peace. Further, the ECCC and the civil 

society actors collaborated to identify common goals. For example, the ECCC states on their 

website (2022) that their collaborative efforts to archive survivor histories, program learning, and 

other initiatives relating to memory represent many examples of the ways in which a society can 

intentionally preserve and share difficult traumatic history. Through the act of preserving and 

sharing the history, whether it be written or oral or performative, the ECCC and civil society 

collaborators are also modeling important values. Their work can foster reconciliation or division, 

depending on how the narratives are contextualized. As the interviews and documents in my case 



 30 

study illuminate, the most effective projects are the ones able to achieve the former– creating 

spaces for restorative justice, positive peace discourse and sustained reconciliation.  

A Note on the Diversity of Memory and Memory Negotiation 

Memory is not homogenous or static. Memory changes for the individual over time and in 

relation to how it is shared and processed with others. When a large area is affected, such as a 

country like Cambodia, experiences differ greatly depending on where you were and what your 

real and perceived identities were (Sirik, 2020). Bell  (2003) emphasizes the importance of 

memory diversity through interactive discourse and warns mightily against “over employing” the 

concept of a national memory: 

It is therefore essential to challenge the notion of a ‘national memory’, the totalizing 
mnemonic that forms the basis of a nationalist narrative: the alleged unified, coherent 
memory shared amongst all of the people concerning their national past. If we can talk of 
collective memory at all – call it organic memory (as remembrance) to highlight its bottom-
up development within civil society, as well as its fragile nature… (p. 74) 
 

Sirik (2020) and Lesley (2014) both support this assertion made by Bell in the specific 

context of post-genocide Cambodia. My work builds on this premise. Traumatic memories, like 

those experienced by survivors of the Cambodian genocide, are not static. As the traumas are 

recalled and shared, they are continually processed. This processing is happening for the individual 

possessing the firsthand memory as well as for those who listen to the memories–in many cases 

close family members and friends. Many survivors of the Khmer Rouge genocide are now the 

elders of a recovering society. The participants in their 30s and 40s, described the genocide as both 

constantly present in stories while also being shrouded in mystery. Participants remembered small 

evocative interactions with their parents, aunts, and uncles such as being told not to waste food 

because there was a time where there was no rice or listening on the periphery to ghost stories and 

souls unable to move on because of how they died during the regime. One NGO leader, Dara Hout 



 31 

(2019) explained the stories of Khmer Rouge and his mother’s survival were his “bedtime stories.” 

This is an important consideration as now the memories are being processed and remembered by 

those who did not directly experience the genocide.  

Differing interpretations of past events help to explain why memory is not simply agreed 

upon as fact, and is rather an organic and relational process for a community. Memory is constantly 

being negotiated. Not only are various actors vying to participate in the preservation and 

transference of public memory, but memory is also a negotiation between the past and present. As 

Arnold-de Simine (2013) surmises, “Memory is understood to emerge through the mutual 

interactions of the past on the present and the present on the past '' (p. 20). In this framework, we 

can understand the present in a new way. First, by seeing how the present is reflects the past and 

second, how the current actors in society exercise power and agency to construct and deconstruct 

past memories. Both contribute to the ever-changing collection of narratives that build up the 

culture of the society. 

Memory negotiation is a debate over what historical narratives will be validated and 

included in a nation’s psyche. The negotiations occur through top-down and bottom-up processes 

and have multi-directional impacts that are perceived at the individual level. In this way each 

individual is working to process and navigate memory alongside the efforts of the collective in 

order to find consensus towards a shared narrative and identity. 

Competing Narratives and Discourses 

The United States Institute of Peace 2007 Report The Urge to Remember: The Role of 

Memorials in Social Reconstruction and Transitional Justice defines memorialization in the 

following way: 

Memorialization is a process that satisfies the desire to honor those who suffered or died 
during conflict and as a means to examine the past and address contemporary issues. It can 



 32 

either promote social recovery after violent conflict ends or crystalize a sense of 
victimization, injustice, discrimination, and the desire for revenge. (Barsalou & Baxter 
2007, p. 1) 
The above definition of memorialization will be the one used henceforth in this research 

study. Memorialization happens in many ways including through the construction of monuments 

and museums, through designing curriculum, museum exhibitions, and national archives and by 

establishing days of remembrance. When any of these efforts are utilized, they catalyze long term 

impacts. These impacts on the society as a whole can either be towards healing and growth or 

towards division and future conflict.  

Though memorialization and commemoration are similar acts (“Commemorate” is listed 

as a synonym for memorialize in the Merriam Webster dictionary (2020)) there are relevant 

nuances that are worth delineation.  The roots of commemoration involve the acts of recalling and 

remembrance and is tied to the act of honoring or celebrating through appropriate ceremonial 

means. This may include the erection of a built memorial, but may also refer to more temporary 

actions, or actions that take place intermittently (days of memory, marches, exhibits). Acts of 

commemoration often happen at meaningful times related to the event being remembered, such as 

the anniversary of an armistice or victory . 

National archives often exist as part of other memorialization and commemoration efforts. 

Memorials, commemorations, and national archives all play important roles for individuals and 

groups in the aftermath of violent conflict and genocide. The erection, maintenance and demolition 

of memorials are a common source of debate in all areas of the world. Memorials can be symbols 

of particular periods of history that may or may not be well received. While some members of a 

society may accept and celebrate a certain memorial, others may find the symbolism hurtful and 

resent the honorary status the memorial receives. Just because an image has been set in stone 

through memorialization, does not mean the depiction is unbiased or even accurate. The agenda 



 33 

behind a memorial object can be pieced together through analyzing when the memorial was 

erected, who funded the memorial, and how the public responded to the memorial over time.  

Memorialization in the Cambodian Context 

In an effort to understand through examples what we mean by memorialization and 

commemoration in the Cambodian context, we will turn to look at the work of two researchers 

(who are also key informants) who have spent time in the field looking specifically at the 

process, impacts and response to memory construction and negotiation. The first study reflects 

on fieldwork done in 2012 related to the two most widely known memorial sites: Choeung Ek 

(The Killing Fields) and the school-turned-slaughter house S21 prison, Tuol Sleng. 

Elena Lesley spent years in Cambodia and in 2012 focused her research on two key 

memorial sites used to remember genocide: Choeung Ek and Tuol Sleng. Lesley (2014) 

describes that, until recently, these sites were visited predominantly by international tourists and 

far less by Cambodians. In order to get more Cambodians to visit these important sites, civil 

society organizations began study tours which became directly connected to the hybrid ECCC 

tribunal’s educational outreach work. Lesley (2014) further frames the environment prior to the 

transitional justice tribunal process in Cambodia as one where the government sought to give 

amnesty to “lower-level” perpetrators and urged communities to forget the past in order to move 

forward without the baggage of tragedy. She explains, “While Cambodians were urged by the 

state to move beyond the past in the 1990s in the interest of reconciliation, the establishment of 

the ECCC in 2003 has launched a new era of outreach, education and memorial efforts” (p. 131). 

She goes on later to explain how the people of Cambodia have received mixed and oppositional 

messages regarding what they should or should not remember. Lesley did extensive interviewing 

and participant observation to gain an understanding for how Cambodians have felt about the 



 34 

mixed messages over time. In the excerpt below the term Democratic Kampuchea (DK) is 

synonymous with the Khmer Rouge regime time period and the People’s Republic of 

Kampuchea (PRK) refers to the time period of Vietnamese occupation in the direct aftermath of 

the fall of the Khmer Rouge and the ‘Pol Pot-Ieng Sary Clique’ refers to the high-level leaders 

within the Khmer Rouge regime: 

Those who lived through [Democratic Kampuchea] have received shifting messages 
throughout the years about how to remember the history of the highly secretive regime—
the leadership of which was known to many as simply as ‘angkar’ (‘the organization’)—
and whom to blame for its disastrous legacy. Under the [People’s Republic of Kampuchea,] 
they were told to harness their chheu chap (rage born of grief and betrayal) to prevent the 
return of ‘Pol Pot-Ieng Sary Clique,’ …Then in the 1990s, the government instructed 
Cambodians to forget the past in order to move forward and achieve reconciliation. (p. 143) 
 

With all of these changes came understandable confusion and arguably a compounding of 

trauma.  Differences in messages were in fluctuation over time periods depending upon who held 

power and control over the narrative.  

Lesley found that reactions to the study tour experience varied greatly depending on if the 

participant was from a place formerly occupied by the PRK versus those from former Khmer 

Rouge strongholds. Those from the PRK areas were in favor of the ECCC and of retributive 

justice measures yet were mostly unaware of the scale and scope of the mass atrocities 

committed. In contrast, participants from former Khmer Rouge strongholds responded with far 

more “conflicted feelings”. their historical narratives about the regime and genocide begin 

earlier, adding justification to the actions of the Khmer Rouge through blame and a desire of 

accountability for the United States bombings which terrorized communities during the war. 

With this group, the inclination was toward denial of the scale and scope of atrocities committed 

by the Khmer Rouge.   They were stunned by the knowledge that the  educational tour 



 35 

experience brought them. Across both groups, Lesley found confusion, cynicism, and an 

emotional reaction to the human remains (bones) found at the sites (Lesley, 2014). 

Savina Sirik’s more recent research specifically focuses upon how the “violent past” of 

Cambodia is remembered through various works of memorialization, commemoration, and 

archival storytelling. This memorialization is done primarily through the work of the 

Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC CAM), an influential NGO and research institute 

started in 1995. DC CAM self-identifies on the organization’s website as an “international leader 

in the quest for memory and justice” (DC Cam website 2020). The organization’s director, Youk 

Chhang,  includes the phrase “Cambodia will never escape her history, but she does not need to 

be enslaved by it” as part of his email signature (DC CAM Email listserv, 2020). In her 2020 

study, Sirik found that within the Cambodian context the dominant historic narratives are those 

sanctioned by the current ruling party. However, civil society actors including NGOs provide 

contrasting narratives through thoughtful film, performing arts, exhibits and memorials that seek 

to show the diverse nature of experience of all survivors of the Khmer Rouge time period. Sirik 

found that memorialization, “…Represents a powerful arena for contested memory…In a sense, 

memorialization provides a space for constant interaction” (p. 249). This finding relates to the 

differences discussed by Hinton (2018) regarding monologic versus dialogic in the creation and 

sharing of memory.  

Both Sirik and Lesley see potential in the dialogues and outreach efforts led by the ECCC 

and civil society actors in Cambodia. This is because the efforts are bringing more Cambodians 

to the dialogue surrounding the genocidal past and are eliciting more participatory processes to 

both individual and group memory.  Lesley found throughout her interviews with younger 

Cambodians that at least the dialogues are happening now since the movement towards memory 



 36 

construction has gained momentum. These specific memory-based educational outreach 

initiatives are also helping Cambodians to reflect and grieve in communal ways. One interview 

with a former Khmer Rouge soldier shows the complexity of conceptualizing victim and 

perpetrator in the Cambodian context.  In this study Lesley spoke to Vuthy, a Cambodian male 

who fought for the Khmer Rouge. Vuthy speaks to the different emotions that emerge from 

watching foreigners versus fellow Cambodians learning about the past: 

For some reason, watching foreigners take pity on his country affected him in a way that 
seeing fellow Cambodians grieve for their own history had not…he was struggling to 
understand that the movement he had followed for decades is now considered a murderous, 
genocidal regime by most of the outside world. (p. 146) 

 

This perspective is included to show the impact that international visitors to Cambodia 

can have on the post-conflict narrative. When Vuthy sees outsiders (international visitors) take 

“pity” this evokes more shame. The knowledge that people like him are seen as villains by the 

“outside world” is a different level of condonement from the feelings evoked by seeing fellow 

Cambodians grieving about the past.



 37 

Chapter 2: Comparative Post-Genocide Contexts 

Introduction 

 The Cambodian genocide response is unique in some respects, but it is by no means 

isolated as many neighboring countries share aspects of the past and countries around the world 

face dilemmas surrounding contested violent histories. In the following chapter I situate the 

Cambodian context through presenting comparative post-genocide contexts around the world. I 

selected Bangladesh, Rwanda, former Yugoslavia (Bosnia-Herzegovina) and Sri Lanka for 

inclusion. Each of these contexts shares key attributes with the Cambodian context which will be 

identified under each case alongside key points of differentiation. Two of the cases, Bosnia-

Herzegovina, and Rwanda, both had UN backed tribunals. Their tribunals (the ICTY and ICTR 

respectively) are sometimes called sister councils with the ECCC. The other two cases, 

Bangladesh (1971) and Sri Lanka (2009) are present to show contexts that have yet to have 

tribunals with Bangladesh as a case happening close to the time of the Khmer Rouge and the Sri 

Lankan case representing a current example.   

An Overview 

Memory construction lies at the heart of reconciliation efforts in post-genocide contexts. 

Memory is linked to acknowledgment of suffering and respect for victims and survivors. 

Similarly, victims and survivors are central to the work of the ECCC tribunal. The tribunal is one 

example of multiple models around the world for implementing transitional justice. The United 

Nations (2008) defines transitional justice as:  

Transitional justice is an approach to systematic or massive violations of human rights that 
both provides redress to victims and creates or enhances opportunities for the 
transformation of the political systems, conflicts, and other conditions that may have been 
at the root of the abuses. A transitional justice approach thus recognizes that there are two 
goals in dealing with a legacy of systematic or massive abuse. The first is to gain some 



 38 

level of justice for victims. The second is to reinforce the possibilities for peace, 
democracy, and reconciliation. To achieve these two ends, transitional justice measures 
often combine elements of criminal, restorative, and social justice. (p. 1) 

 

 Transitional justice has been identified as one key mechanism for intervention in post conflict 

contexts since it emerged in the 1980s.  Providing multi-dimensional justice after wars, atrocities 

and genocide, transitional justice is context specific and often set up as an ad hoc organization.  

Transitional justice is a linkage between memory, reconciliation, and peace building. The ECCC 

hybrid tribunal closely ties the importance of memory to the work of the Court in fulfilling key 

parts of the mission devoted to moral and symbolic reparations. For the ECCC model, it was 

(and remains) critical that victims are able and encouraged to participate in memory construction. 

 Though memory construction, transitional justice, reconciliation, and peacebuilding are 

linked, the relationships are complex. Let’s take memory construction to illustrate an example of 

how the tool can be implemented with varying intents. Memorials can be constructed to preserve 

a piece of the past as a symbol to honor or to