【正文】 s work raises but does not answer the fundamental question: what is the ultimate goal of these bodies – which of course would inevitably affect how we think about the attendant processes? Further, by considering truth missions in relative isolation from other institutions and modalities of transitional justice, such as criminal trials, Freeman avoids some of the most plex procedural questions that have a bearing on the meaning of fairness: for instance, to what extent is it appropriate that testimony or evidence given under the noncriminal standards of truth missions be available for use in criminal trials. And by abstracting from politics, the book also manages to avoid wrestling with the fundamental problem here of ‘the exception’: to what extent do departures from ideal procedures get justified by the exceptional character and demands of the transitional situation? And how can one make such promises without eroding the guiding normative force of the standards and principles that are identified here as conceptually justified? The clear risks of allowing ‘the exception’ to do just that are very much around us – witness the war on terror. Arguably in the absence of a procedural minimum with universal applicability, the very idea of a global rule of law bees unsustainable. Although several core questions remain unaddressed, the book is a wele contribution to the available work on evaluating truth missions and their processes 12 and is delivered in an accessible format with useful inclusions such as appendices that catalog previous missions in chronological order and according to a variety of criteria. 13 指 導(dǎo) 老 師 評(píng) 語 簽名： 年 月 日 。 powers of search and seizure, and finally, with the very serious issue of the publication of alleged perpetrators’ names. Each of these dimensions of a truth mission is given its own dedicated chapter. 11 Beyond the singling out of these dimensions, Freeman proposes a guiding conception of procedural fairness, offering a set of general principles for dealing with the problems. These principles include independence and impartiality, accountability, petence, nondiscrimination, transparency, proportionality, dignity, accessibility and good faith. He then introduces peting procedural objectives such as efficiency, flexibility, victimcenteredness, accuracy and prehensiveness (p. 132), and raises the practical constraints confronted by truth missions such as limited time, scarce resources and large caseloads. This conception of procedural fairness, however, plays itself out in curious abstraction from the politics of transition。 the taking of statements。s book is perhaps the only sustained effort to examine selfconsciously the question of the appropriate standards and principles by which to judge these efforts. Freeman aims to take a ‘hard look at issues of procedural fairness for truth missions’ (p. xiv). And so he does – bringing rigorous legal analysis to an area which, thus far, has largely operated on the perimeters of the law。 盡管有幾個(gè)核心問題仍未得到解決， 但 這 本書 在 評(píng)價(jià)真相委員會(huì)和 程序公正，及 提供無障礙格式 （ 如根據(jù)不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 或 按時(shí)間順序 來 排列附錄目錄 ）上所做出的努力，對(duì)我們來說仍 是一個(gè) 偉大 的貢獻(xiàn) 。不過也存在“ 例外 ” ： 為了順應(yīng)時(shí)代變遷，我們應(yīng)以 何種程度 的 性質(zhì)和要求 才能 不偏離理想的程序， 如何在 不削弱標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和原則 的 指導(dǎo)規(guī)范 力量的同時(shí)使之妥協(xié) ？ 這種“ 例外