Politics of Pursuing Justice in the Aftermath of Civil Conflict

Abstract

Why do some states pursue transitional justice (TJ) in the immediate aftermath of armed conflict while others do not? What drives a state to select a particular type of justice mechanism over another? Building on the political explanations of TJ, we argue that postconflict justice (PCJ) decisions are driven by the interests and power of political elites shaped by recently ended conflicts. Our empirical analysis shows that conflict outcomes and their subsequent impact on the balance of power between the government and rebel groups are the most important determinants of PCJ decisions. Domestic trials are most likely to emerge out of a decisive, one-sided victory while truth commissions and reparations are most likely to occur after a negotiated settlement. We also find that conflict severity interacts with conflict outcomes to affect PCJ decisions.

Sovereignty Rupture as a Central Concept in Quantitative Measures of Civil War

“… 21. For example, of the fourteen studies of civil war and armed conflict published by the Journal of Conflict Resolution between January 1 and August 2, 2018 that used cross-country data analysis (includes publication via “online first,” excludes articles the primary function of which was to present a new data set), ten used a twenty-five yearly battle-related death threshold (or lower) and four used the UCDP/PRIO ACD or a data set built on it but did not explain their criteria for what constituted a civil war. The former are Gleditsch et al (2018), Fisk (2018), Bohnet, Cottier, and Hug (2018), Prorok (2018), Otto (2018), Conrad et al (2019), Maekawa (2019), Wiegand and Keels (2019), Asal et al (2018), and Kim and Hong (2019). The latter are Blankenship (2018), Kim (2018), Lee (2018), and Roy (2018). …”

Negotiating justice: Ceasefires, peace agreements, and post-conflict justice

“…Although post-conflict justice can stem from normative or functional considerations, policymakers' preferences are likely constrained by other forms of volatility and the degree to which recurrent war still poses a threat (Flores & Nooruddin, 2012;Sikkink & Kim, 2013;Walter, 2015;Hegre & Nygard, 2015;Loyle & Davenport, 2016;Girelli, 2017). Previous literature identifies a conflict's end as a salient factor in shaping the constraints imposed on a state in the post-conflict environment (Binningsbø et al, 2012;DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem, 2017;Kim & Hong, 2019). Because post-conflict justice implementation is necessarily a decision relegated to the aftermath of war, policymakers are likely to be constrained when deciding whether to implement postconflict justice.…”

“…Their regression analysis finds a positive and statistically significant correlation between negotiated outcomes and restorative justice regimes. Most recently, Kim & Hong (2019) describe how post-conflict justice implementation stems from political motivations of policymakers, who locate opportunities for the pursuit of certain types of post-conflict justice and encounter constraints toward others depending on the process by which a conflict ends. In particular, their empirical analysis finds domestic trials to be more likely following outright victories whereas restorative forms of justice follow in the aftermath of a negotiated outcome.…”

“…A recurring answer in the literature stems from the recognition that the end of a conflict shapes what is possible in the post-conflict environment (Flores & Nooruddin, 2009;DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem, 2017). Recent research on the effect of conflict termination and post-conflict justice shows how military victories and negotiated outcomes may impact the implementation of different forms of justice (Binningsbø et al, 2012;Reiter, Olsen & Payne, 2013;DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem, 2017;Kim & Hong, 2019). Within this literature, multiple studies identify negotiated outcomes as mechanisms leading to the implementation of restorative forms of justice via truth commissions, amnesties, and reparations over trials, exiles, or purges (Binningsbø et al, 2012;DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem, 2017;Kim & Hong, 2019).…”

“…Recent research on the effect of conflict termination and post-conflict justice shows how military victories and negotiated outcomes may impact the implementation of different forms of justice (Binningsbø et al, 2012;Reiter, Olsen & Payne, 2013;DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem, 2017;Kim & Hong, 2019). Within this literature, multiple studies identify negotiated outcomes as mechanisms leading to the implementation of restorative forms of justice via truth commissions, amnesties, and reparations over trials, exiles, or purges (Binningsbø et al, 2012;DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem, 2017;Kim & Hong, 2019). However, in identifying this relationship, all of these studies treat ceasefires and peace agreements as a single phenomenon, thereby overlooking the disparate effects of different types of negotiated instruments.…”