Justice and reconciliation are increasingly recognised as important issues in the transition to democracy and in obtaining positive peace. However, there is no common understanding of these terms nor consensus as to how to assess their strength. Problems can arise when policies are based on differing definitions and expectations.
This article from ‘Third World Quarterly’ examines various meanings of reconciliation and justice, and discusses them in the light of complex political emergencies (CPEs). The international community is found to have a role in matters of justice, but an extensive understanding of local conditions is imperative. Reconciliation is argued to be a domestic matter, where international intervention should be confined to supporting outcomes.
The main findings of this paper are:
- The concept of reconciliation can mean to end fighting, improve relations between states, commit to peaceful co-existence and/or to sacrifice something for the sake of compromise. A political definition is more difficult to arrive at than one applied to individuals.
- The concept of post-conflict justice is difficult as each party has a different idea of what would constitute a just outcome. Indeed, both parties usually think they are fighting for justice in the first place. The challenge is finding a minimal type of justice that is acceptable to all sides.
- Following CPEs, the allocation of blame and punishment can be very difficult as it can be seen as vengeance or can make a volatile situation worse. A degree of forgiving and forgetting is required if peace is to be achieved. Punishment for serious war crimes is often dealt with with no reference to the concept of justice, although punishment can serve to remove vengeance or threats to security.
- In the transition from conflict to peace, local systems of justice may be executed. A detailed understanding of local circumstances is required to assess if it is appropriate to support these or not.
The main policy implications of this paper are:
- For reconciliation in peace settlements, some sort of truth process is usually central. Truth Commissions can influence considerations of what might be possible in terms of longer-term reconciliation. Issues of amnesty and compensation create difficulties.
- Civil society peace organisations are increasingly used to reconcile communities. However the assumption that ‘civil society is good’ and a poor understanding of local circumstances can make this a dangerous intervention. Outsiders need to know the local organisations that they are working with.
- Amnesty is often seen as an essential part of justice during peace settlements, although it can undermine the victims’ sense of justice. Prosecution for human rights abuses should follow internationally recognised guidelines. Individuals’ personal security is an important part of the peace process to lessen the likelihood of revenge attacks and can be established by replacing security forces with outsiders.
- In the longer term, comprehensive justice needs to be delivered. Truth Commissions can go a long way to providing this but need to fulfil demanding criteria. This includes ownership by the state, impartiality, clear objectives, transparency and ability to present accurate information.
