How does transitional justice contribute to peacebuilding in post-conflict societies? What lessons can be learnt from previous transitional justice programmes? This chapter from a book published by the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces examines the key elements of transitional justice and identifies approaches that maximise their capacity to promote peace. It argues that programmes should complement peace-building by seeking popular and political support, aiming to build local capacity, and producing detailed, specific recommendations.
Transitional justice takes place following conflict, mass violence or human rights atrocities. Recently developed international law instruments and deepened democracy in many post-conflict societies have increased the political will to respond to human rights abuses.
Programmes involve prosecuting perpetrators, ascertaining the truth about crimes, providing reparations, reforming institutions and promoting reconciliation. Each stage is an important but partial component of transitional justice: prosecution can reach a minority of perpetrators; truth commissions can prevent abuses recurring; reparations can provide limited compensation; vetting initiatives can positively reform institutions; and reconciliation can offer protection to minorities.
In examining the intersection between transitional justice and peacebuilding, various key themes emerge:
- While tensions may exist between justice and peace in the short term, transitional justice should not be deterred indefinitely and should form part of a peace settlement.
- Truth commissions can examine the root causes of conflict, make recommendations to avoid its recurrence and, along with prosecutions, limit victims’ desire for revenge.
- Truth commissions and vetting programmes can contribute to state-building and institutional reform by removing former abusers from government and improving institutions’ effectiveness and human rights standards.
- Truth commissions and reparations programmes can generate awareness of marginal groups’ vulnerabilities and redress inequalities.
- Prosecutions can only hope to punish a few human rights abusers: vetting and truth commissions are important in effecting broader security sector reform and reintegration of former combatants.
- More generally, transitional justice can promote the rule of law, restore trust in state institutions and consolidate democracy by exposing abuse and promoting accountability.
Transitional justice processes must be consultative, committed, comprehensive and realistic in scope:
- Transitional justice institutions’ mandates must be context-specific and based on popular and political support: reluctant governments should be persuaded to commit to programmes, although programmes can be established without full government backing.
- Transitional justice should not be introduced for cosmetic reasons which deny justice, grant blanket amnesties and fail because their institutions become politicised.
- Local capacity should be targeted: domestic tribunals in Rwanda received US$10 million from donors and conducted 7,000 trials between 1997 and 2002; the international tribunal, which received almost US$400 million, produced less than 10 convictions.
- Further research is needed into the interaction between transitional justice institutions, especially the overlap between the work of truth commissions, prosecutions and vetting programmes.
- Donors should integrate the support and funding procedures of their peacebuilding and transitional justice programmes: good practice approaches should be developed on the intersection between demilitarisation and justice processes.
- Truth commissions should produce detailed and specific recommendations which add impetus to peacebuilding efforts; generalised proposals have little practical impact.
