Search results

Any country which attempts to establish accountability for past abuses of human rights during the process of democratization faces political, judicial, and ethical problems. With regard to politics, the question of which transitional justice measures are appropriate, functional, and feasible has to be decided for every individual case. A judicial approach has to decide which judicial standards to apply and how to justify prosecution. Finally, the ethical dilemmas of dealing with historical injustices have to be understood. There are no ready-made concepts to define guilt and justice. In many cases it is even difficult to tell the victims from the perpetrators. This study examines the different strategies subsumed under the term 'transitional justice' used by emerging democracies to deal with a legacy of human rights abuses. It explores the problems and challenges posed by different mechanisms of reconciliation and societal reintegration. While existing analyses of the contribution that transitional justice measures make to the process of social re-integration stress the importance of consensus among citizens and social groups for the emergence of trust and solidarity, this study suggests also thinking about how conflicts over competing 'truths' can help to build social capital and reconciliation. Noting a global diffusion of international legal norms, which means at least formal universal acceptance of basic rights and judicial procedures, it is argued that international justice cannot be a substitute for transitional justice measures taken by the domestic regime itself. Adapted from the source document.

In the US today, there remain many unresolved issues related to race, in particular issues that are legacies of past injustices toward African Americans. This article argues that, in addressing these issues, we have much to learn from other societies that have undergone political transformations from regimes that systematically abuse human rights to regimes that respect, or at least purport to respect, human rights. These transitions have given rise to the idea of transitional justice, & to well-developed debates about what justice requires during such periods of transition. I argue (in the first section) that transitional justice usually requires the backward-looking measures of prosecution, reparation, & acknowledgement, & I further argue (in the following section) that by this standard the transformation that took place during the civil rights era in the US was unjust, or, at least, remains incomplete. In the final section of the article, I discuss measures that should be considered as ways of completing our transition to a racially just society. Adapted from the source document.

When democratization took place in 1998 after three decades of authoritarianism in Indonesia, transitional justice became one of the agendas for the country. With the nature of compromised political transition, transitional justice brought together the interest of the elements who wished to challenge the repressive regime, and those who wished to distant themselves from the old regime in order to return to politics. As the result, transitional justice measures were successfully adopted in the beginning of political transition but failed to achieve its goals to break with the old regime and bring justice to victims. Today, after twenty years since reformasi, elements of the politics are consolidated, including those coming from the old regime. Transitional justice is undergoing a period I refer as "post transitional justice". The main character of this state is the extensive roles of civil society. I argue in this paper that civil society, in particular the human rights groups, have important roles since the beginning of the transition in setting the agenda for transitional justice until today when state-centered mechanisms failed and led to post-transitional justice situation. These groups shift strategies to work from below and from the margins, which give strong character for post-transitional justice in Indonesia.

Presentations -- Preface -- Introduction -- Part 1: Conceptions and debates on transitional justice -- Part 2: Prosecutions and diverse paths to justice -- Part 3: The right to truth and the role of memory -- Part 4: Reparations and institutional reform -- Contributors

Transitional justice, a movement devoted to bringing accountability to departed political regimes, has been the engine of the international human rights community in the past four decades. But while much has been said about how transitional justice enables successful democratic transitions, some of the movement's legacy is more checkered—from endangering such transitions to rekindling old feuds and undermining the rule of law. Acknowledging this seldom discussed darker side of transitional justice is not an argument against holding an old regime to account for its actions, but rather a recognition of the limits of what justice can do to advance democratization.

Chapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: Research Design and Methodology -- Chapter 3: Theorizing the nexus between transitional justice and peacebuilding -- Chapter 4: Evolution of Transitional Justice -- Chapter 5: Lessons from Liberia's Transitional Justice Process -- Chapter 6: Outlook Towards a Syrian-led Approach to Transitional Justice -- Chapter 7: Complexities of the Safe Return of Refugees -- Chapter 8. Conclusion -- Chapter 9. Appendices.

AbstractTransitional justice refers to the process of dealing with widespread wrongdoing characteristically committed during the course of conflict and/or repression. Examples of such processes include criminal trials, truth commissions, reparations, and memorials. Technology is altering the forms that widespread wrongdoing takes. Technology is also altering the form of processes of transitional justice themselves. This essay provides a map of these changes and their normative implications.

AbstractTransitional justice aims at once to restore victims' dignity, build confidence between warring groups and foster the institutional changes needed to bring about a new relationship within the population, in order to usher in the rule of law without endorsing practices that amount to total or partial impunity. In situations of post-conflict, however, governments are also faced with other pressing needs, such as disarming fighting forces, improving civilian security, compensating victims and relaunching the economy of a society in ruins. This article explores the relationship between these needs and transitional justice mechanisms, and critically evaluates their influence on the forms justice has taken in post-conflict situations.

Mainstream transitional justice and peacebuilding practices tend to re-entrench gendered hierarchies by ignoring women or circumscribing their presence to passive victims in need of protection. As a consequence we have limited knowledge about the multifaceted ways women do justice and build peace. To address this lacuna we conceptualize and unpack the meaning of gendered agency, by identifying its critical elements and by locating it in space and in time. The conceptual work that we undertake is underpinned by empirical mapping of the transitional justice spaces in post-conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina, where we point out instances of critical, creative, and transformative agency performed by women that challenge or negotiate patterns of gendered relations of domination. We collect women's oral narratives and explore new sets of questions to capture women's unique experiences in doing justice. Such research enables us to engage with the subjects of post-conflict peacebuilding and transitional justice processes directly and in their own spaces. This article thus renders women's agency visible and attempts to grasp its contributions and consequences for transformations from war to peace.

In the 1990s, in particular, a large part of violent conflicts took place on the African continent. After their ending, the legacy of often extreme violence is being addressed by truth commissions, tribunals & so-called traditional mechanisms -- all referred to under the umbrella of transitional justice. Against the backdrop of extreme poverty in many parts of Africa the articles raises the questions, if & how development aspects need to be considered when dealing with massive violence. In response, it analyses the cases of South Africa, Rwanda & Sierra Leone. It argues that in cases where social injustices & ensuing poverty were amongst the structural causes of the conflict, as well as in cases where economic crimes formed part of the forms of violence, transitional justice needs to include development aspects. It however cautions against considering the concept more generally as a motor for social change & to overburden it with the unreflected inclusion of development aspects. Adapted from the source document.

"Vor allem in den 1990er Jahren fand ein Großteil der innerstaatlichen Gewaltkonflikte auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent statt. Nach ihrer Beendigung wird vielerorts das oft extreme Ausmaß der Gewalt durch Wahrheitskommissionen, Tribunale oder vermeintlich traditionelle Mechanismen - zusammengefasst unter dem Begriff Transitional Justice - aufgearbeitet. Vor dem Hintergrund extremer Armut in vielen Teilen Afrikas geht der Artikel der Frage nach, ob und in welchem Maße Entwicklungsaspekte in die Aufarbeitung von massiver Gewalt einbezogen werden sollen. Dies wird exemplarisch anhand der Fallbeispiele Südafrika, Ruanda und Sierra Leone analysiert. Es wird argumentiert, dass in Fällen, in denen soziale Ungerechtigkeit und folglich Armut zu den strukturellen Konfliktursachen zählen, sowie in Fällen, in denen ökonomische Verbrechen Teil der Konfliktaustragung waren, Transitional Justice Maßnahmen durchaus Entwicklungsaspekte mit einbeziehen sollten. Allerdings wird davor gewarnt, das Konzept generell als Motor sozialer Transformation zu betrachten und durch die unreflektierte Einbindung von Entwicklungsaspekten mit zu hohen Erwartungen zu überfrachten." (Autorenreferat)