Abstract
The perceived dilemma between a choice of focusing on justice or peace after armed conflict continues to be an issue around the globe. Particularly the treatment of perpetrators remains a highly contentious issue, whether amnesty is a policy of impunity or is a necessary evil to get to a peace agreement in the first place. While the importance of justice is increasingly gaining grounds, cases around the globe show the difficulty to punish the perpetrators. Part of the peace versus justice debate is also affecting the fields of human rights and conflict resolution that are divided on the topic and still fail to communicate effectively between each other. Only by understanding their differences, it is possible to collaborate successfully together. Artículo de investigación científica que trabaja el tema de la justicia y la paz en el marco de un conflicto armado. Versions of this article were published on the blog of the author: http://johanneslanger.com
Highlights
How can sustainable peace be reached after armed conflict? Should the focus be put on stopping the violence and reach peace, or is it first of all necessary to bring the perpetrators to justice? The con
The ten case studies have shown that a variety of problems are caused with the focus on justice during or after violent conflict, because it is limiting the possibility of negotiations (Libya, Sudan), is an excuse to go after one’s political opponent (DRC, Uganda), is an instrument to “satisfy” the international community but one is not taking it seriously (Kenya) or is seen as a burden that severely undermines for the implementation of a peace agreement (Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland)
Enduring and longterm peace is much more than the immediate goal of ending a conflict and relies on justice and accountability to ensure sustainability
Summary
How can sustainable peace be reached after armed conflict? Should the focus be put on stopping the violence and reach peace, or is it first of all necessary to bring the perpetrators to justice? The con-. Two basic solutions seem to be suggested: (1) perpetrators of human rights violations are put on trial in front of a national or international tribunal through the means of criminal justice or (2) amnesties (in various degrees) need to be granted to the conflict actors and its belligerents to reach a peace agreement in the first place. It is a choice between justice or peace. Human rights are universal in their nature, the article is normatively based on a cosmopolitan ground
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
