This paper argues that transitional justice needs to adopt a participatory approach to achieve longer‐term sustainability, shifting away from the top‐down ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ approach to allow ‘voices from below’ to be heard and heeded. It critiques dominant interpretations of key transitional justice concepts, and links them to the difficulties of post‐conflict transitional justice in a range of violently divided societies. Popular participation and local agency, it is argued, is necessary to achieve ends identified in much transitional justice discourse, and to embed mechanisms for the creation of sustainable peace. A Northern Ireland initiative (the Ardoyne Commemoration Project) will be explored in‐depth, illustrating how a bottom‐up ‘truth‐telling’ process can make a significant contribution to transitional justice and casting doubt on the validity of the deference to legal dominance in current policy and practice. The paper recommends that knowledge available in development studies and participatory theory be applied more clearly in debates and approaches in transitional justice.

This article critically examines the nature, role and function of official apologies with respect to conflict-related deaths in Northern Ireland. It draws on empirical research of investigations carried out by the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) in state involvement cases and in particular a sample of unpublished reports that prompted official apologies. These reports also contain individual 'perpetrator' apologies or expressions of regret. Apologies are promoted as an important transitional justice tool, and the topic has generated considerable literature. However, while that literature has touched upon the possible adverse effects of apologies, there has been less focus on examining the empirical evidence of situations where apologies have turned out to have negative effects. This article addresses aspects of this research gap through the lens of three key transitional justice themes: redress, reparation and victims' agency. Pivotal questions are raised about the value of apology to the victim on the one hand and the state on the other. The conceding or withholding of official apologies is examined: who qualifies and why, and whether certain victims are deemed 'undeserving' of an apology. The article concludes by suggesting that a pattern of official apologies without accountability and acceptance of responsibility is emerging in Northern Ireland; that official apologies can function as a way to shield state institutions, deflect further scrutiny, deny culpability, avoid effective redress and placate and silence victims. In this context historical injustice may be intensified rather than rectified, causing more harm than good, at best glossing over past wrongs and at worst facilitating impunity and re-traumatising victims.

The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between trust, testimony and truth recovery processes as part of post-conflict transition. The paper uses the case study of unionist attitudes toward a community-based truth-telling project in Northern Ireland to demonstrate the impact an absence of trust can have upon what the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur has described as the 'space of controversy' that emerges between the 'certification' and the 'accreditation' of testimony. The paper suggests such distrust is a legacy, not only of conflict, but also of the particular circumstances of transition and the specific mechanisms of truth recovery adopted. Ultimately the paper argues for a holistic, community-centred approach towards truth-telling and raises issues relevant to other violently divided societies undergoing transition and grappling with ways in which to deal with the legacy of political conflict.

and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

No abstract