Grassroots transitional justice framework : the role of mediation in Zimbabwe’s transitional justice processes

Transitional justice ideas, processes, and institutions offer post-conflict and tormented societies the glimmer of hope of a more stable future erected upon values of the rule of law, accountability, justice, post-conflict reconstruction, and development. Societies wracked by violence see transitional justice as offering the tools to midwife a democratic, rule-of-law state. Broadly speaking, transitional justice can be said to be concerned with how societies address legacies of past human rights abuses, mass atrocity, or other forms of severe social trauma, including genocide or civil war, in order to build a more democratic, just, and peaceful future. Epistemically, the field of transitional justice is variegated, comprising theoretical debates, the comparative assessment of domestic accountability schemes, international criminal justice, the study of truth commissions, and ethical-legal debates concerning the morality of compromise on accountability for gross and systemic violations of human rights. Several subthemes to the discipline suggest the absence of complete coherence in its characterization and praxis. The focus of this article on transitional justice in Africa domesticates the exploration of the subject matter in the African experience. Transitional justice in the African context takes on a special character and orientation. While the core objective of transitional justice praxis in Africa remains similar to transitional justice orthodoxy in the international context—namely, the fight against impunity and the push for accountability and post-conflict reconstruction and development—the emerging consensus points to the effective realization of socioeconomic justice, gender justice, and the right to development as equally critical, if not central, to the redress of past injustices. Instrumental to the successful delivery of this broadened set of objectives is a combination of traditional and nontraditional frameworks embedded in a wide range of laws, policies, institutions, and community norms and customs. In combination, they present the rough contours of an African model and mechanism for not only dealing with the legacies of conflicts and violations of human rights, but also addressing governance deficits and developmental challenges in line with the African Union’s Agenda 2063. This article is structured around a number of themes aimed at deepening appreciation of the field of transitional justice in Africa, namely: Transitional Justice Laws, Policies, and Norms; Transitional Justice Accountability Systems; criminal accountability in Africa’s transitional justice praxis; Human Rights, Democracy, and Governance; Decolonization and Postcoloniality; Conflict and Transitional Justice; Transitional Justice Goals and Outcomes; Reimagining the Field of Transitional Justice; and journals publishing on transitional justice.

The economic and social dimension of transitional justice has been largely ignored in favour of traditional emphasis on violations of civil and political rights. While early transitional justice processes mainly focused on criminal prosecutions for bodily integrity violations, socioeconomic issues, including economica and social rights (herein ESRs) violations, were seen just as part of background. However, scholarship and practitioners are increasingly calling to include ESRs violations in transitional justice processes. Indeed, economic and social conditions are frequently linked to human rights abuses, often constituting a cause, means or consequence of conflict and authoritarianism. Including the assessment of ESRs violations as an issue for transitional justice might serve the purpose of establishing a more comprehensive understanding of the root causes of past human rights violations as well as to facilitate the pathway to achieve a sustainable peace.

The delicate process of constitution-making during transition covers a range of issues, but usually features questions on how to address past human rights violations, change repressive laws, recognise basic rights and reform state institutions. Hence, the constitution-making process can have significant implications on the transitional justice mechanisms that are adopted and how they are implemented. In the case of Ghana, the 1992 Constitution came into force after decades of political instability. On 28 April 1992, a draft constitution for Ghana’s fourth republic was approved in a referendum. As part of the transitional provisions in the 1992 Constitution, amnesty provisions were enshrined to protect members of all previous military regimes from prosecution. However, the 1992 Constitution did not contain express provisions for initiation of other transitional justice mechanisms. In a bid to reflect on the rarely examined relationship between transitional justice mechanisms and constitutionalism, this paper shall examine Ghana’s amnesty laws, truth commission and reparative measures in relation to the constitution-making process and constitutional norms. The paper opines that as separate processes towards a common end, proper synchronisation of Ghana’s transitional justice processes and constitution-making could have shaped the country’s transitional justice mechanisms in the right direction towards achieving their perceived goals.

The article examines the EU’s policy framework, programs and tools on support to transitional justice, and evaluates their impact and challenges. Transitional justice refers to the various ways of addressing the past human rights violations and serious crimes that occurred in contexts of political transition, such as post-conflict or post-authoritarian situations. The EU has adopted a comprehensive policy framework on support to transitional justice in 2015, which defines its principles, objectives, and modalities of engagement with partner countries and international and regional organisations on transitional justice issues. The EU has also used various instruments and actions to support transitional justice initiatives worldwide, such as providing financial assistance, engaging in political dialogue, offering technical expertise, and advocating for transitional justice norms and standards. The article also illustrates how the EU has supported transitional justice processes in different contexts and regions, such as dealing with the legacy of World War II, the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the war in the former Yugoslavia, and the Arab Spring. The article concludes by identifying some of the achievements and shortcomings of the EU’s involvement in transitional justice processes, such as contributing to accountability, recognition, trust, reconciliation, and non-recurrence; but also facing inconsistency, selectivity, conditionality, interference, cooptation, politicisation, fragmentation, duplication, etc. The article also suggests some ways to improve the EU’s policy framework, programs and tools on support to transitional justice, such as enhancing consistency, coherence, coordination, complementarity, and adaptability. The article also explores how the EU’s role and approaches in the field of transitional justice can affect its own identity and credibility as a global actor that promotes human rights, democracy, and the rule of law as core values of its external action.

This article analyses the Indonesian efforts to resolve past human rights abuses under the mechanism of transitional justice following the downfall of President Soeharto on May 21, 1998. The focus of analysis is the implementation of transitional justice in the cases of Aceh, Papua, and East Timor during the transitional period. This article shows that the efforts to enforce transitional justice in these cases have been faced with obstacles. Although there have been notable efforts in terms of both judicial and non-judicial to enforce transitional justice, the final results are not satisfactory. Transitional justice mechanism to resolve past human rights abuses was implemented only with half-baked and supported with half-hearted. As a result, it has failed to bring justice for the victims. There are lessons can and should be learned from these transitional justice cases for resolving other past human rights abuse cases in Indonesia today. The current Indonesian government should pay attention to the lessons in order to resolve past human rights violations in accordance with its promise during presidential election campaign in 2014. Otherwise, it is likely to repeat the same mistake and failure of justice dealing with past human rights violations.

Through the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution of 2007, Nepal has vowed to address the conflict-era human rights violations including through adopting a credible transitional justice processes. However, the national commitments towards ensuring accountability for past human rights violations and ensuring non-repetition of such violations in future are yet to be fulfilled. In this context, the judicial activism appears to have been a silver lining in terms of taking forward the transitional justice issues. In this backdrop, this chapter aims to analyse the decisions of Supreme Court of Nepal pertaining to promoting accountability for the past human rights violations and to examine the strengths and weaknesses of judicial response in the light of victims’ right to effective remedy guaranteed under the international human rights treaties and jurisprudence. This chapter finally provides a set of suggestions towards strengthening the transitional justice process in Nepal.

This book considers the efficacy of transitional justice mechanisms in response to corporate human rights abuses. Corporations and other business enterprises often operate in countries affected by conflict or repressive regimes. As such, they may become involved in human rights violations and crimes under international law ‒ either as the main perpetrators or as accomplices by aiding and abetting government actors. Transitional justice mechanisms, such as trials, truth commissions, and reparations, have usually focused on abuses by state authorities or by non-state actors directly connected to the state, such as paramilitary groups. Innovative transitional justice mechanisms have, however, now started to address corporate accountability for human rights abuses and crimes under international law and have attempted to provide redress for victims. This book analyzes this development, assessing how transitional justice can provide remedies for corporate human rights abuses and crimes under international law. Canvassing a broad range of literature relating to international criminal law mechanisms, regional human rights systems, domestic courts, truth and reconciliation commissions, and land restitution programmes, this book evaluates the limitations and potential of each mechanism. Acknowledging the limited extent to which transitional justice has been able to effectively tackle the role of corporations in human rights violations and international crimes, this book nevertheless points the way towards greater engagement with corporate accountability as part of transitional justice. A valuable contribution to the literature on transitional justice and on business and human rights, this book will appeal to scholars, researchers and PhD students in these areas, as well as lawyers and other practitioners working on corporate accountability and transitional justice.

Constitutionalism in transitional societies entail a range of issues, including how to address past human rights violations, amend repressive laws and reform State institutions. A traditional constitutional approach which departs from the specific needs of a transitional society can portend either positive or negative implications on a society’s long-term recovery from conflict and authoritarian rule. This chapter undertakes a comparative analysis of constitutional advice in two transitional societies: Ghana and Colombia. It analyses the scope and effects of constitutional advice in these contexts and examines how their different approaches have impacted their modern polities and shaped their transitional processes. In the case of Ghana, the 1992 Constitution’s adoption occurred after a constitution-making process that was primarily dominated by the then ruling government of the Provisional National Defence Council. While an amnesty was granted for members of the past military regimes, the Constitution did not provide for the establishment of other transitional justice mechanisms. For its part, the adoption of the 1991 Colombian Constitution implied a progressive shift towards human rights safeguards, and provided a framework for the attempted and ongoing transitional justice processes. The Legal Framework for Peace (2012), recognising a new criminal prosecutorial model, and the 2016 Peace Agreement with FARC, leading to the creation of an integral system of transitional justice comprised of institutions such as the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, were granted constitutional status as constitutional amendments. The chapter argues that coordination of transitional justice mechanisms with constitutional advice-giving in both the Colombian and Ghanaian contexts would have shaped their constitutional norms and transitional justice mechanisms to achieve their perceived goals.KeywordsColombiaConstitutional AdviceConstitution-MakingGhanaJudicial ReviewTransitional Justice

The Ethiopian government has committed to a transitional justice process to address gross human rights violations through investigation, prosecution, truth-finding and revelation, reconciliation, conditional amnesty, reparation, and institutional reforms. Despite these efforts and international support, this mechanism will unlikely resolve Ethiopia's political and security issues. The government's lack of intent to cease ongoing conflicts and its continued human rights violations hinder effective participation in implementing the transitional justice process. Furthermore, the involvement of non-state and foreign actors, which are beyond the state’s authority, in gross human rights violations undermines accountability. Victims and witnesses in conflict zones face significant barriers to participation due to the government's limited reach and fear of retribution. Gross human rights violations by the government and the Ethiopian National Defense Force raise doubts about the accountability of civil and military leaders through a government-controlled transitional justice mechanism. To address these challenges, the current government should relinquish power to a transitional government to mitigate undue influence on the justice process, cease hostilities, and hold officials accountable. If the government resists establishing a transitional government, a hybrid court with foreign judges and prosecutors should handle high-profile cases, while domestic courts, with strict measures to ensure impartiality and independence, should address other cases.

Since the end of the Cold War, democratic governance gradually has increased in most African countries with the end of one-party systems, the organization of multiparty elections, and a general opening of the political space. Despite ongoing crises in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, and the Sudan, violent conflicts in Africa have decreased by half in the 2000s, compared to the mid-1990s.1 These positive developments were facilitated by the adoption of comprehensive continental and subregional peace and security, as well as governance frameworks, which contribute to strengthening African countries’ commitment to sustainable peace as well as principles of human rights and the rule of law. As part of these efforts, transitional justice processes illustrate African countries’ efforts to address past human rights violations while moving toward more peaceful and democratic societies. The United Nations defines transitional justice as “the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempt to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation.”2 In Africa, transitional justice processes have been proposed or implemented in approximately twenty countries that made use of transitional justice mechanisms in various instances: to transition from war to peace; from authoritarian rule to democracy; but also in the absence of clear transition from a particular conflict situation and undemocratic rule to peace and democracy.

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.

ABSTRACTThis article critically examines how multifarious levels of division among victim constituencies have shaped legal and non-legal transitional justice responses to human rights violations. It submits that this division has caused such responses to operate in accordance with the notion of being a ‘victim of’ rather than that of simply being a victim of human rights abuse per se. Expanding from this position, it proffers the theoretical viewpoint that transitional justice responses are premised on the nuanced typologies of being a victim of a particular perpetrator or being a victim of a particular harm or being a victim of particular circumstances. When determining which victims to offer redress to, which victimisers to punish and which harms to repair, these approaches have by necessity fallen back on hierarchies that favour certain victims and harms above others. This process of hierarchisation is multi-layered and involves interplay between ideological, gendered and class-based factors that place certain victims outside the reach of transitional justice discourses and processes. The exclusion of these victims, the article argues, creates an invisibilised category of victims of the peace that fail to benefit from transitional justice processes that struggle to deal with the complexity their situations present.

Helping societies affected by conflict or emerging from oppressive rule to restore the rule of law and come to terms with widespread human rights abuses, particularly in the context of broken institutions, depleted resources, deteriorating security, and public anxiety and disunity, represents an enormous the problem Transitional justice aims to ensure recognition of victims, strengthen individuals' trust in state institutions, strengthen respect for human rights and promote the rule of law as a step towards reconciliation and prevention of further violations. Transitional justice processes have repeatedly demonstrated that they can help resolve problems and differences. To this end, such processes should be context-specific, state-responsive, and victim-focused. Then they can unite, empower and transform societies and thus contribute to lasting peace. For the United Nations system and structure, transitional justice is the full range of processes and mechanisms involved in society's attempt to come to terms with the legacy of massive past abuses in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation. Transitional justice processes and mechanisms are a critical component of the United Nations system and structure to strengthen the rule of law. United Nations rule of law and transitional justice activities include developing standards and best practices, assisting in the development and implementation of transitional justice mechanisms, providing technical, material and financial support, and promoting the mainstreaming of human rights and transitional justice in peace agreements.

Helping societies affected by conflict or emerging from oppressive rule to restore the rule of law and come to terms with widespread human rights abuses, particularly in the context of broken institutions, depleted resources, deteriorating security, and public anxiety and disunity, represents an enormous the problem Transitional justice aims to ensure recognition of victims, strengthen individuals' trust in state institutions, strengthen respect for human rights and promote the rule of law as a step towards reconciliation and prevention of further violations. Transitional justice processes have repeatedly demonstrated that they can help resolve problems and differences. To this end, such processes should be context-specific, state-responsive, and victim-focused. Then they can unite, empower and transform societies and thus contribute to lasting peace. For the United Nations system and structure, transitional justice is the full range of processes and mechanisms involved in society's attempt to come to terms with the legacy of massive past abuses in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation. Transitional justice processes and mechanisms are a critical component of the United Nations system and structure to strengthen the rule of law. United Nations rule of law and transitional justice activities include developing standards and best practices, assisting in the development and implementation of transitional justice mechanisms, providing technical, material and financial support, and promoting the mainstreaming of human rights and transitional justice in peace agreements.

Within the study and practice of transitional justice, the roles played by the arts in addressing past human rights violations have become increasingly well accepted. This article examines the role of the arts in Cambodia’s transitional justice process, from the initial coupling of attempts to revive the arts with the pursuit of human rights in the early 1980s to the reparations orders provided by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). It identifies five main contributions the arts may make to transitional justice processes—evidence, complementary justice, outreach, activism, and critique—and demonstrates not only that various art forms have assumed each of these roles in Cambodia but also that this case extends the place of the arts in transitional justice. In particular, by highlighting the role played by local activists in seeking to revive the arts in the aftermath of the Khmer Rouge period, this article reveals the significance of arts initiatives, instigated in the absence of a formal justice process, for formal processes once they eventually emerge. In doing so, it argues that without the arts initiatives and activism that preceded it, the formal inclusion of the arts in the ECCC process would not have been possible.