What We Know About Transitional Justice: Survey and Experimental Evidence

Abstract

Transitional justice encompasses a variety of measures devised to overcome legacies of gross human rights violations and other historical injustices. The spread of international criminal tribunals, truth commissions, inclusive alternatives to purges, and apologies represents one of the most fascinating intellectual developments in legal and social studies. What do we know about the social efficacy of transitional justice measures? This article reviews 25 studies that provided quantitative evidence about the effects of transitional justice gathered at the individual-level analysis and situates them in the context of other studies on major transitional justice interventions: truth commissions, international criminal tribunals, lustration (vetting), reparation, and apologies. The article concludes that (1) transitional justice matters in dealing with the past; (2) justice is understood as a social-political category rather than a legal category; (3) past experiences affect attitudes to transitional justice as well as its outcomes; (4) different victims have needs for different transitional justice measures; (5) the outcomes of transitional justice depend on its context and implementation; (6) truth-sharing may produce both positive and negative effects; and (7) reconciliatory measures may produce positive social effects.

Reconciliation Versus Justice? It Depends on the Context: The Role of Symmetric and Asymmetric Violence in Predicting Postconflict Attitudes

“…Transitional justice is rooted in the normative assumption that postconflict societies need “to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation” (United Nations Security Council, 2004, p. 2). It includes both restorative and retributive justice measures (Wenzel et al, 2008), such as war crimes prosecutions, truth commissions, and reparations (David, 2017). Social psychological research examines people’s support for transitional justice principles (e.g., condemnation of HR violations; Elcheroth, 2006) and measures (e.g., support for international criminal tribunals; Li et al, 2018).…”

Pitfall to Peace: FARC’s Political Participation and Mass Support for Peace Talks in Colombia

“…Many states, simultaneously, introduce processes of DDR -demobilisation, disarmament, and (social and economic) resocialisationand the political integration of former combatants (de Vries and Wiegink, 2011;Sriram et al, 2013;Theidon, 2007;Ubink and Rea, 2017;Willems and van Leeuwen, 2015). Public opinion research on these processes has, thus far, chiefly focused on TJ mechanisms and sought to explain individual attitudes towards them (see reviews in David, 2017;Nussio et al, 2015). In contrast, we know very little about the causes or consequences of mass support for political integration of ex-combatants.…”

Transitional justice in postwar Austria

“…Hence, Austria might even be an ‘irreconcilable’ society that failed at reconciliation until it was too late. The theory of transitional justice posits (at least implicitly) that being an unreconciled society might have actual implications for contemporary Austria, as ‘[t]he effect of past experiences can be passed on from generation to generation’ (David, 2017, p. 171) 20 . But how do Austria's past failures with transitional justice affect present-day generations?…”

“…What is the causality between the current situation in Austria and its lack of reconciliation after World War II? How can proponents of transitional justice claim that ‘[t]ransitional justice … can mollify some of the negative consequences of traumatic experiences’ (David, 2017, p. 171)?…”