• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»Document Library»Effects of invisibility: in search of the ‘economic’ in transitional justice

Effects of invisibility: in search of the ‘economic’ in transitional justice

Library
Zinaida Miller
2008

Summary

 

This article argues that the field of transitional justice (TJ) has historically excluded issues of economic inequality, structural violence, redistribution and development.  It argues that transitional justice mechanisms are not neutral and the invisibility of economics within these processes contributes to maintaining a narrative wherein inequality is a question of time or development rather than an ideology of elites.

The article is split into three parts: chronological and regional iterations of global TJ; the absence of economic questions in the literature; and possible costs of such an omission. It draws on a range of examples to outline some methods by which attention to the economic dimensions of conflict and transition has been suppressed and offers a list of some of the stakes involved.

It argues that transitional justice mechanisms are not neutral; they simultaneously construct and are constituted by new regimes in the aftermath of significant social change, enforce norms of a new liberal state, and memorialise a violent past in the service of creating a peaceful future. As a result, TJ has failed to recognise the full importance of structural violence, inequality, and economic (re)distribution to conflict and for its resolution, including processes of truth or justice seeking and reconciliation. This has three consequences:

  • An incomplete understanding of the origins of conflict: with a narrative that seeks to foster sustainable peace and create national reconciliation.
  • An inability to imagine structural change due to a focus on reparations: when economics are addressed in TJ it is usually through the narrow focus of reparations and compensation. This may have specific distributional effects and help to define guilt and victimhood, and may also serve to mark the continuing lack of significant redistribution.
  • The possibility of renewed violence: the argument that the redistribution of wealth is beyond the scope of TJ ignores the distributional effects of transitional justice instruments that can perpetuate inequality in the new post-transition state.

Implications

By leaving economic development, issues of resource distribution or inequality of power/wealth to separate courts or to executive control, transitional justice institutions implicitly tell society that development and conflict are separate and that inequality itself is not to be prosecuted or amnestied.  This separation allows a myth to be formed that the origins of conflict are political or ethnic rather than economic or resource-based, and increases the risk of renewed violence.  Programmatic resolutions must come later. The first step towards redressing these existing biases is to reveal and untangle them.

Source

Miller, Z. (2008). Effects of Invisibility: In search of the 'economic' in transitional justice. , pp 266 - 291. doi: 10.1093/ijtj/ijn022

Related Content

Key Drivers of Modern Slavery
Helpdesk Report
2020
Transitional justice
Topic Guide
2016
Responding to mass atrocities and human rights abuses
E-Learning
2015
Refugee, IDP and host community radicalisation
Helpdesk Report
2014
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by FCDO are © FCDO Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more