What do we know about the effects of transitional justice (TJ)? This working paper from the Centre for International Policy Studies surveys major studies and finds that empirical knowledge on the impacts of TJ is still limited. There is insufficient evidence to support strong positive or negative claims for TJ’s impact on political violence, human rights and the rule of law. Until further research is forthcoming, policymakers should take a consultative and gradual approach.
There is considerable debate on the desirability and effectiveness of TJ as a means of consolidating peace, promoting human rights and righting past wrongs. While its proponents argue that it promotes reconciliation and respect for human rights, sceptics argue that it undermines conflict resolution and peaceful transitions from authoritarianism. Assessing these claims requires more and better data collection and more careful and systematic analysis. Research on TJ should be interdisciplinary, use a variety of methods, examine both the societal and individual levels and study both ‘treatment’ and ‘control’ groups. An international review panel should be established to report regularly on the state of knowledge relating to TJ.
A survey of major studies on transitional justice shows that:
- There is little evidence that TJ produces either beneficial or harmful effects. There are few rigorous cross-national analyses, and the best studies acknowledge the difficulty of reaching strong conclusions about the effects of TJ across cases.
- ‘Fact-based’ discussion of TJ requires more sustained, careful and comparative analyses. At present the literature does not provide the empirical foundations for informed policy decisions. Present findings should be treated cautiously.
- Further research is likely to produce more reliable findings. A new generation of recent studies on TJ impacts is laying a foundation for a more rigorous emerging research programme.
Current knowledge gaps do not allow for detailed recommendations, but policy implications are listed below. These do not address the moral dimensions of transitional justice in different contexts. Policymakers should:
- Conduct rigorous planning and analysis before pursuing TJ processes. Planning should be based on extensive consultation with stakeholders and experts.
- Beware the possible pitfalls. These include fear of prosecution preventing peace deals, leaders using trials for propaganda purposes, backlash from ‘spoilers’, the creation of resentment and the fostering of grievances.
- Focus on comparable cases. Identify countries or cases that share similar characteristics and in which similar methods have been practised.
- When in doubt, consider TJ pilot projects and phased approaches. A gradualist approach could reduce the dangers of unanticipated negative results, while also helping observers to evaluate and refine TJ strategies.
- Listen to the people. The views of affected populations should be sought through surveys, interviews and focus groups and should play a major role in TJ choices.
- Evaluate TJ progress and outcomes, but avoid over-reliance on standard programme evaluation tools. TJ efforts should be continuously monitored to evaluate their effects according to a clear set of criteria.
