Human rights organizations and transitional justice agenda-setting: Evidence from peace agreement provisions

Abstract

How do human rights organizations (HROs) shape transitional justice policy in countries emerging from conflict? We investigate this question in the context of peace processes, a vital stage when many key post-conflict policies are determined. Using granular data on the content of peace agreements, we show that the robust presence of HROs significantly increases the likelihood of provisions promising criminal accountability for wartime abuses. Yet this association is conditional on prior ratification of international human rights instruments and the existence of impartial third parties in the peace process—background factors that lower barriers to effective HRO advocacy. These findings reveal a novel pathway through which HROs secure transitional justice on the national agenda after conflict.

Justice Now and Later: How Measures Taken to Address Wrongdoings during Armed Conflict Affect Postconflict Justice

“…A prominent example are the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo) who demanded the whereabouts of their missing children during Argentina's dictatorship (Humphrey and Valverde 2008, 85). In the context of peace agreements, Bell and Kitagawa (2022) find that civil society organizations play a role in shaping justice policies within peace agreements in the direction of criminal accountability. However, civil society actors or public opinion, more broadly, have also been found to resist or go against the establishment of justice institutions, as for example in Sierra Leone and Mozambique (Shaw 2007;Igreja and Skaar 2013).…”