Developing Transitional Justice for Youth: An Assessment of Youth Reintegration Programmes in Colombia

Disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs have traditionally been designed and implemented in total isolation from transitional jus- tice measures, of which reparations for victims is one kind. It is only recently that the approach that considers DDR as essentially a technical issue to be decided exclu- sively on the basis of military and security concerns with no regard for political or justice considerations has begun to be questioned. The incentives to try to bring the worlds of the peace maker and of the justice and human rights promoter together, however, are manifold. The general aim of this paper is to construct an argument about the advisability of drawing links between DDR and reparations programs, not just because this is better from the standpoint of justice, but because it may help DDR programs as well. The paper first briefly presents the facts of two cases, Rwanda and Guatemala, countries that have moved significantly farther regarding DDR than reparations. It then outlines some of the fundamental challenges faced by DDR and reparations programs, respectively. The next section presents concep- tions of transitional justice and of DDR that facilitate seeing why implementing DDR programs but no reparations program is problematic. The argument capital- izes on and reinforces the trust-inducing potential of both DDR and transitional justice measures. If the argument is correct, a successful linkage of these measures will strengthen both DDR and transitional justice programs. Focusing on DDR, one of the main advantages this linkage offers to DDR programs is that it would help them mitigate one of the fundamental criticisms to which they have been subject, namely, that they reward bad behavior. The final section provides some comments on the role of the international community in DDR and reparations programs.

A key component of peace processes and post-conflict reconstruction is the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of ex-combatants. I argue that DDR programs imply multiple transitions: from the combatants who lay down their weapons, to the governments that seek an end to armed conflict, to the communities that receive—or reject—these demobilized fighters. At each level, these transitions imply a complex equation between the demands of peace and the clamor for justice. However, traditional approaches to DDR have focused on military and security objectives, which have resulted in these programs being developed in relative isolation from the field of transitional justice and its concerns with historical clarification, justice, reparations, and reconciliation. Drawing upon my research with former combatants in Colombia, I argue that successful reintegration not only requires fusing the processes and goals of DDR programs with transitional justice measures, but that both DDR and transitional justice require a gendered analysis that includes an examination of the salient links between weapons, masculinities, and violence. Constructing certain forms of masculinity is not incidental to militarism: rather, it is essential to its maintenance. What might it mean to “add gender” to DDR and transitional justice processes if one defined gender to include men and masculinities, thus making these forms of identity visible and a focus of research and intervention? I explore how one might “add gender” to the DDR program in Colombia as one step toward successful reintegration, peace-building, and sustainable social change.

This paper investigates the implications of transitional politics to the processes and outcomes of the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programme targeted to the Maoist ex-combatants in Nepal. It shows that the DDR programme in Nepal was unconventional because of (a) following its own context-specific model developed outside of an established DDR framework, (b) being a process led by national actors in the absence of external intervention, and (c) offering no space for non-state actors such as civil society and business to engage in designing and implementing management of the Maoist arms and armies. Highly politicized by conflicting needs and interests of key political actors, the DDR programme was stalled for nearly six years before a resolution about the future of the ex-combatants was forged. Failure of the political actors to forge a common shared outcome of the DDR programme, lack of clarity in the peace negotiation document in terms of processes of rehabilitation and integration of the ex-combatants, and minimal political will of the Maoist to participate in the DDR programme have been identified as key political constrains that have significantly implicated and altered the modality, function and outcome of the DDR programme in Nepal.

The eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is poised on the edge of a machete blade. Despite the achievement of considerable peace-building successes throughout much of this central African state in recent years, the current activities of armed groups and the Congolese armed forces in North Kivu, South Kivu, and Ituri, have the potential to further destabilize the eastern provinces, and possibly even neighboring countries. Former combatants are prominent in the security and stability equation in the eastern DRC. The reason is that if this section of society has not been effectively disarmed, demobilized and reintegrated into civilian life, then they have the potential to return to arms. In this region, over 100,000 ex-combatants have been demobilized over the past decade in successive waves of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) interventions. Assessments and speculation about the reintegration of ex-combatants in North Kivu, South Kivu and Ituri have suggested that these individuals have become marginalized, and their reintegration into civilian society is precarious, thus making them vulnerable to further recruitment by armed groups. Some reports have even suggested that numerous former fighters have remilitarized in the mining areas in order to access mineral wealth. Consequently, research on the socio-economic reintegration of ex-combatants in the eastern DRC was undertaken by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), and funded by the Transitional Demobilization and Reintegration Program (TDRP) of the World Bank. North Kivu, South Kivu and Ituri were the three geographical areas of focus, given the volatility and potential pivotal role of these areas in promoting and consolidating peace in the eastern DRC. The specific objectives of the research were to: 1) assess the processes of the socio-economic reintegration of former combatants into civilian life; 2) analyze the causes and dynamics of the current security situation (or lack thereof) in the three areas, and the implications for current and future DDR processes; and 3) evaluate the extent to which demobilized former combatants have been re-recruited into armed groups, including motivating and resilience factors. The research took place between February and September 2011, with the findings and analysis being presented in this report.

The disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) poses an intractable and thorny political-security dilemma. Besides prevailing uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of the adopted DDR measures, their ramifications on the interconnected framework of transitional justice (TJ) introduce yet another layer of complexity. Based on a literature review and a limited number of expert interviews, this paper explores what DDR initiatives are in place for PMF members, and what challenges they present for transitional justice in Iraq’s post-IS landscape, to reflect on the often overlooked tensions between DDR and TJ. Such tensions are especially intricate in Iraq, as the PMF are pro-government militias (PGMs), who are themselves key actors in Iraq’s post-conflict governance and have a de facto role in formulating and implementing TJ initiatives on the ground. The paper demonstrates that the limited Iraqi DDR initiatives in place have a negative impact on TJ initiatives aimed at accountability, reparations, and reconciliation. This leads us to critically reflect on the viability of any conventional DDR programme for PGMs like the PMF.

The main aim of the paper is to analyse the potential transitional justice mechanisms, directed at reintegration of Donbas, a territory temporarily occupied by pro-Russian separatists, being under the combination of a direct and indirect control of Kremlin, with Ukraine. In the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity and a remove of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych as a consequence of Euromaidan protests held in Kyiv, in the Winter 2013/14, Ukraine became a state involved in the international armed conflict covering its Eastern provinces as a result of an external aggression of the Russian Federation. Furthermore, since early-2014, Moscow is continuously using pro-Russian militants to form and uphold unrecognised, de facto regimes of the so-called ‘Donetsk’ and ‘Luhansk People’s Republic(s)’ affecting the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. It is argued that Kyiv shall take into consideration some of the peace and restoration models applied in similar conflict or post-conflict environments, such as the United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES) or the experience of numerous disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programs, filled with the transitional justice component. Moreover, by emphasising the context of a military (semifrozen) conflict in Eastern Ukraine, the paper is going to shed more light on the possible application of transitional justice tool-kit in the ongoing conflicts scenarios and its potential contribution to the shift from a conflict to the postwar environment.

Bridging the Gap: The United Nations Peacebuilding Commission and the Challenges of Integrating DDR and Transitional Justice

This article engages with recent attempts to bridge the apparent divide between disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) and transitional justice, and their implications for post-conflict environments characterized by large-scale displacement. Much of the literature on technical, institutional remedies to better coordinate DDR and transitional justice and respond effectively to displacement overlooks a series of theoretical and empirical challenges stemming from diffuse or decentralized conflict in the post-Cold War era. The article highlights these general problems by examining the cases of Rwanda and Uganda, neighbouring countries recovering from continuing cycles of mass conflict and forced displacement over the last two decades. Based on the author's interviews with over 1,000 respondents, it shows that attempts to coordinate DDR and transitional justice have been much more problematic in both countries than most commentators suggest. Greater recognition of the challenges of diffuse violence, and more careful policymaking by national and international actors, are required in the pursuit of lasting peace and security after mass conflict and displacement.

This study investigated the role of mediation in grassroots transitional justice processes. The major aim of the study was to understand the role of mediation in transitional justice processes, ascertaining its effectiveness as a grassroots transitional justice mechanism and how its demand for use in transitional justice can be increased. The study was carried out using action research methodologies, with a mediation project carried out in the Makoni District of Manicaland in Zimbabwe. The mediation project involved community members addressing transitional-justice-related conflicts using mediation as a tool for conflict resolution. The mediators were provided with mediation skills through a training programme and their work was evaluated thrice to ascertain the role and impact of the mediation interventions on transitional-justicerelated conflicts. The project was termed Mediation for Everyday Transitional Justice because it was implemented in a natural community’s daily environment, by local people and for the local communities. The continuing failure of transitional justice mechanisms in Zimbabwe amid continued human rights violations justifies the undeniable value of this study. Zimbabwe’s past transitional justice efforts (since 1980, when the country became an independent republic) failed to build sustainable peace hence the country’s continued relapse into political and socio-economic turmoil. However, with appropriate transitional justice interventions that are built on grassroots-informed processes, sustainable peace is conceivable in Zimbabwe. Mediation, as an alternative dispute resolution process that is both persuasive and non-retributive, offers an interesting opportunity to the practice of transitional justice. The research concluded that the role of mediation in transitional justice is to facilitate truth telling, reparations, healing, and reconciliation among disputants without the need to use national-level transitional justice infrastructures. This means that, at the grassroots level, transitional justice processes can take place without waiting for the statist transitional justice approaches. However, in cases where the past human rights violations being addressed are tied to structural violence, driven from outside the community, local mediation processes may not be possible without the consent, cooperation, and willingness of those who sustain such conflicts. In addition, mediation cannot play any significant role in enabling prosecutorial justice, memorialisation, and institutional reforms at the grassroots level. Prosecutorial justice cannot be achieved because perpetrators can withdraw quickly when possibilities exist to be held criminally accountable for past human rights abuses. Institutional reforms also require changing governance policies and practices which are issues beyond the control of specific local communities. The study also observed that mediation is an effective tool for grassroots transitional justice issues because it is efficient, it saves time and financial resources, and it can be undertaken by local actors. To increase its demand and use in transitional justice processes at the grassroots level, these is a need to increase communities’ awareness of the importance of mediation in transitional justice, provide mediation-skills capacity-development interventions to potential mediators, and enhance the agency of various mediation actors at the grassroots levels.

While peacebuilding is a long-term and complex endeavor, a cacophony of actors and agendas, together with a persistent tendency to focus on short-term needs at the expense of long-term priorities, stymie efforts to build lasting peace. Complex problems call for innovative and integrated interventions. The staples of post-conflict peacebuilding — including, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR), security sector reform (SSR), rule of law initiatives, and transitional justice mechanisms ranging from prosecutions to truth commissions — are meant to serve overlapping constituencies and common purposes. In practice, however, such initiatives have often operated on separate tracks, leading to redundancy, avoidable tensions, and lost opportunities. This article focuses on the special challenges that arise out of the need to develop more integrated approaches to DDR and transitional justice and argues that the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) must play a stronger role in bringing together this and other pieces of the post-conflict puzzle. Even though the possibility of tension between transitional justice mechanisms and DDR programs cannot be eliminated, careful attention to areas of overlap should be part of innovative and integrated approaches to post-conflict peacebuilding going forward in order to advance common goals. The gains of such an approach would be modest, but worthwhile.

ABSTRACTEducation is acknowledged as a component of transitional justice processes, yet details about how to implement education reform in postconflict societies are underexplored and politicized [King, Elisabeth. 2014. From Classrooms to Conflict in Rwanda. New York: Cambridge University Press]. Local and international actors often neglect the complicated nature of education reform in postconflict societies undergoing transitional justice processes [Jones, Briony. 2015. "Educating Citizens in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Experiences and Contradictions in Post-war Education Reform." In Transitional Justice and Reconciliation: Lessons from the Balkans, edited by Martina Fischer, and Olivera Simic, 193–208. New York: Routledge. Transitional Justice]. The role of the diaspora in transitional justice has been increasingly explored as a participatory transnational actor with influence and knowledge about local dynamics [Roht-Arriaza, Naomi. 2006. The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; Haider, Huma. 2008. “(Re)Imagining Coexistence: Striving for Sustainable Return, Reintegration and Reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. ”International Journal of Transitional Justice 3 (1): 91–113; Young, Laura, and Rosalyn Park. 2009.“ Engaging Diasporas in Truth Commissions: Lessons from the Liberia Truth and Reconciliation Commission Diaspora Project.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 3 (3): 341–361; Koinova, Maria, and Dženeta Karabegović. 2017.“ Diasporas and Transitional Justice: Transnational Activism from Local to Global Levels of Engagement.” Global Networks 17 (2): 212–233]. This article bridges academic literature about diaspora engagement and transitional justice, and education and transitional justice by incorporating the role of diaspora actors in post-conflict processes. Using empirical data from multi-sited field work in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and France, it examines diaspora initiatives which aim to influence local transitional justice processes through translocal community involvement in education and youth policy. It argues that diaspora initiatives can provide alternative and intermediate solutions to the status quo in their homeland, with some potential for contributing to transitional justice and reconciliation processes. Ultimately, diaspora initiatives need support from homeland institutions in order to forward transitional justice agendas in post-conflict societies.

This book seeks to refine our understanding of transitional justice and peacebuilding, and long-term security and reintegration challenges after violent conflicts.
\n
\nAs recent events following political change during the so-called 'Arab Spring' demonstrate, demands for accountability often follow or attend conflict and political transition. While, traditionally, much literature and many practitioners highlighted tensions between peacebuilding and justice, recent research and practice demonstrates a turn away from the supposed 'peace vs justice' dilemma. This volume examines the complex, often contradictory but sometimes complementary relationship between peacebuilding and transitional justice through the lenses of the increased emphasis on victim-centred approaches to justice and the widespread practices of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of excombatants. While recent volumes have sought to address either DDR or victim-centred approaches to justice, none has sought to make connections between the two, much less to place them in the larger context of the increasing linkages between transitional justice and peacebuilding .
\n
\nThis book will be of much interest to students of transitional justice, peacebuilding, human rights, war and conflict studies, security studies and IR.

The purpose of this study was to provide a better understanding for policy makers and service providers of mobility and migration among ex-combatants and the effectiveness of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) programming in Uganda. The study followed a scoping study on migration in Uganda conducted in March 2011 by the Transitional Demobilization and Reintegration Program (TDRP) of the World Bank. This study had the following specific objectives: 1) to analyze push/pull migration factors of ex-combatants in Uganda, with a specific focus on social as well as economic factors both within communities of origin and at new communities of re-settlement; 2) to explore any impact of DDR programming on migration of ex-combatants in Uganda; 3) to increase the understanding of the impact of migration by ex-combatants on the effectiveness of past and current DDR programming, specifically on reintegration efforts; and 4) to generate recommendations on how to improve DDR programming, taking into account findings from other related studies.

Exploring Linkages of Traditional and Formal Mechanism of Justice and Reconciliation in South Sudan

ABSTRACTUnder what conditions are Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) programs successfully implemented following intrastate conflict? Previous research is dominated by under-theorized case studies that lack the ability to detect the precise factors and mechanisms that lead to successful DDR. In this article, we draw on game theory and ask how the number of veto players, their policy distance, and their internal cohesion impact DDR implementation. Using empirical evidence from Nepal and the Democratic Republic of Congo, we show that the number of veto players, rather than their distance and cohesion, explains the (lack of) implementation of DDR.