Do war crimes tribunals or truth commissions provide psychological relief from war-induced trauma? Alternatively, does the experience of post-conflict justice exacerbate emotional and psychological suffering? This article assesses the available evidence on the impact of transitional justice, finding little support for either salutary or harmful effects of post-conflict justice. Assumptions that formal truth-telling processes satisfy victims’ need for justice, ease their psychological suffering and dampen their desire for vengeance should be questioned.
Proposals to prevent post-conflict societies from relapsing into violence often include some form of accountability for wartime atrocities through a truth-telling/truth-seeking process. This process usually takes the form of war crimes tribunals, or, increasingly, investigative commissions. Transitional justice advocates claim that truth-telling encourages peace in post-conflict societies through:
- Political and institutional effects: Democratisation, increased human rights protections, enhanced rule of law, and elimination of impunity
- Psychological and emotional effects: Creating a sense of justice for victims; healing emotional and psychological trauma; reducing desire for vengeance; encouraging a greater willingness for reconciliation; and instilling a fear of punishment and shame in potential perpetrators, thereby deterring violent spoilers and the commission of future crimes.
While a relationship between truth-telling and peacebuilding is widely accepted among development agencies, the available evidence is unconvincing.
- There are too few rigorous and systematic studies on the psychological benefits or harms of truth-telling, underlining the fact that relatively little is known about the individual psychological and emotional effects of national truth-telling and accountability mechanisms
- Those few quality studies that exist reveal victims’ responses to truth-telling to be highly individualised and idiosyncratic, with trials and truth commissions equally as likely to dash victims’ hopes and aggravate their psychological wounds, as they are to provide a sense of justice
- Based on the little that is known, it is quite possible that truth-telling has no significant impact, either positive or negative, on victims’ sense of justice, demands for revenge and violent retribution, or psychological trauma.
While truth-telling may not resonate with victims at an individual level, it may still play a role in peacebuilding. Linking truth-telling with peace-building successfully, however, requires that development agencies reassess some of the assumptions and arguments that currently underpin the field of transitional justice:
- Victims of wartime atrocities may not require truth and justice in order to move reconciliation and peace forward. On the contrary, in many cases victims display remarkable psychological resilience.
- While certain individuals may demand retribution and justice, interventions must balance the needs of individuals with the best interests of society. Trials and other legal proceedings can be traumatic events in themselves – as likely to exacerbate tensions within society as to heal them.
- Truth-telling does not always lead to justice or to closure for victims. By enforcing full transparency and openness in procedures, development agencies may actually be dissuading many victims from coming forward for fear of retribution or shame.
