Transitional Justice discourses have largely focused on "paradigmatic transitions." Such analyses emphasize dealing with the human rights abuses committed by prior authoritarian or illegitimate regimes. But, authoritarian entities may not be the only kind of states with a legacy of serious and systematic rights-violations. A similar legacy may manifest in broadly democratic states that have experienced prolonged political violence. These "conflicted democracies" present a number of paradoxes, which come to the fore when peace and transitional political process are agreed, thereby providing unique challenges in political and legal transformation. This article explores these paradoxes and challenges. It further draws out a more nuanced understand of the transitional process by conceptually separating war/peace transitions from illiberal polity/democracy transitions.

This article asserts that 'transitional justice' analyses provide important tools in understanding how societies emerge from violent politics. It argues for a conception of transitional justice that goes beyond the question of dealing with the legacy of past human rights violations; rather, its focus is on a range of inter-related dilemmas relating to the role of law in transitional societies. Specifically, the article explores the pivotal and paradoxical role played by law and legal process in times of transition. It examines the tensions inherent in simultaneously reforming the law while utilizing legal form to bring about institutional transformation. These broad theoretical issues are addressed using Northern Ireland as a case study. The role of law is examined (and a reassessment of transition offered), through an exploration of five inter-linked areas: The relationship between law and conflict; the transformation of legal institutions; dealing with the past; political accommodation and minority rights; and the gap which occurs around gender and political transition. The article concludes by suggesting that only through a broader understanding of transitional justice, coupled with a nuanced reassertion of law's domestic and international legitimacy, can the role of law in transitional societies be adequately understood.

This paper questions the claim that British militarized security strategy in Northern Ireland offers a model for the global`war against terrorism' by exploring the critically important (though neglected) Falls Curfew' episode. Part one explores the relationship between law, legitimacy, and the role of the military in democracies experiencing violent conflict. Part two examines the operationalization of the law on military intervention during the curfew, drawing on archival material and employing empirical studies. Part three draws overall conclusions, relating the contribution that the curfew made to the escalation of the conflict to its operational aspects and legal underpinnings. Failings are identified, and some general lessons drawn out about the dangers of a`war' model in complex and violent political disorders.Official British discourse in the wake of the 9/11 atrocities presents militarized security strategy in Northern Ireland as a model for prosecuting the global`war against terrorism'. 1 The claim begs an obvious rejoinder: if the Army's role in Northern Ireland provides an example to be followed, 341 ß Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003,

British constitutional legal discourse is structurally limited in its capacity to capture the complexity of the Good Friday Agreement. Rather than assessing the Agreement in narrow devolutionary terms, it should be seen as a hybrid domestic and international law instrument, making an important contribution to accepted international law norms in relation to self‐determination. The Agreement transforms and partly transcends the Northern Ireland conflict by substituting political contestation for violent conflict, and by defining the modalities of conducting that contestation. This analysis complements classical international law perspectives, and opens up the application of legal discourses associated with ‘transitional justice’ to the legal and political transformation in Northern Ireland. These discourses focus on the problem of reconciling the demands of peace with the imperatives of justice. The Agreement sits squarely in this terrain with its provisions on ‘dealing with the past’ and ‘institutional legacies’. The insights gained here challenge orthodox thinking about conflict‐management and the ongoing political process.

In place of the simple modelling employed in anti‐terrorist legal discourse, this article posits an interactive model of the relationship between the state and violent political actors, exploring law's role in both the repression and mobilisation of challengers. Drawing on social movement theory, it hypothesises a process of ‘legally implicated mobilisation’ which takes account both of law's presence and its partial absence in ‘legal grey zones’ during violent conflict, and it suggests how law may impact upon key elements of the mobilisation process. The hypothesis is applied to qualitative data from Northern Ireland on violent challengers. The data point to the importance of ‘messaging’ about law in the state of exception, supporting claims that law can have a ‘damping’ effect on violent conflict. The relationship between repression and violence is partly symbiotic, and in the global ‘war on terror,’ prisoner‐abuse may have a mobilising effect on violent challengers.