Accountability after Mass Atrocities

Abstract

The pursuit of accountability for perpetrators of mass violence is a significant aspect of peace negotiations. However, different groups often hold conflicting views on what justice means to them. While scholars increasingly discuss the contested nature of transitional justice processes, accountability continues to be seen as a relatively objective aspect of justice. However, examining the interpretations of accountability in the theory and practice of transitional justice reveals that the term often connotes very different meanings simultaneously, arousing conceptual dissonance. The paper argues that, unlike contestation, dissonance is characterized by a hidden or suppressed plurality of meaning, affecting the legitimacy and relevance of policy as well as the ability to pursue it coherently. The paper explores the conceptual dissonance around the notion of accountability in transitional justice broadly and its impact on the political and legal negotiations of accountability policies in the two cases studies of Liberia (2003-2009) and Uganda (2000-2007), with broader ramifications for the future of Jus post-Bellum.