Evidence from the Transitional Justice Data Base shows that specific combinations of mechanisms – (1) trials and amnesties, and (2) trials, amnesties and truth commissions – improve human rights and democracy. These findings suggest a ‘justice balance’ approach to transitional justice – that trials provide accountability and amnesties provide stability. Truth commissions alone have a negative impact on human rights and democracy, but contribute positively when combined with trials and amnesties.
Transitional justice mechanisms are the major policy innovation of the late twentieth century to reduce human rights violations and strengthen democracy. Despite the proliferation of practices, policies, and studies of transitional justice, however, scholars and policymakers have little systematic evidence to support the claim that transitional justice actually improves human rights and democracy. Second, if transitional justice does achieve its goals, neither scholars nor policymakers clarify when, why, or how it might do so.
The Transitional Justice Data Base project used empirical analysis and found that transitional justice overall has a positive effect on the change in human rights and democracy measures: dealing with past violence is better for these political outcomes than ignoring it. However, only two combinations of TJ mechanisms work: (1) trials and amnesties, and (2) trials, amnesties and truth commissions. Trials and amnesties are thus not incompatible, but work together to produce positive change. In addition:
- None of the transitional justice mechanisms on their own reduce human rights violations or improve democracy.
- Using truth commissions alone to resolve past violence is likely to harm, rather than to improve, human rights.
- The holistic approach moves in the right direction, but because it simply promotes more mechanisms, it remains underspecified.
It is suggested, therefore, that a combination of trials and amnesties is required as a balance between the accountability provided by trials and the stability guaranteed by amnesty:
- The short-term stability provided by amnesties does not necessarily prevent the long-term benefit of accountability through trials. For example:
– In the case of a negotiated transition, trials sequenced after an initial blanket amnesty provide the time to strengthen democratic governance and judicial institutions to permit delayed justice. In some cases it is economic stability rather than, or in addition to, political constraints that may explain the decision to delay or limit trials.
– In the case of regime collapse, a combination of partial amnesties and select trials seems likely to be most effective.
