Potential tensions and synergies between DDR and transitional justice in relation to pro-government militias: the case of the PMF in Post-IS Iraq

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.

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

The understanding that disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programmes are essential in helping to prevent war recurrence in post-conflict situations is at the heart of current international aid practice and the academic literature on peacekeeping and stabilisation. However DDR programmes are often launched on the basis of untested assumptions. This article considers the DDR programme in Liberia and analyses the complex relationship between the programmatic efforts to disarm and reintegrate combatants and the programme's actual effects. If we are to understand how DDR works as a tool of post-conflict governance, it is essential to explore the mechanisms of authority and power at stake. The focus is therefore not on whether combatants were successfully disarmed and reintegrated, but rather on exploring unfolding processes and the field of forces within which DDR programmes are implemented. It critically assesses the ideas of disarmament and reintegration and the basic assumptions behind current DDR policy through an analysis of the Liberian case, emphasising the agency and interests of local and international actors in the ‘making’ and ‘unmaking’ of combatants.

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.

The implementation of post conflict disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programme is usually characterised by several problems and challenges at various stages hence, this paper examined DDR problems and challenges in Africa. The paper argues that DDR programmes can only be effective if it is conducted in line with approved international standards as enshrined in the Integrated, Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Standards (IDDRS) manual. The study adopted the basic human needs theory as its theoretical framework and derived its data from secondary sources. The data collected were analysed qualitatively since the study was a descriptive study. The study revealed that DDR programme is a post-conflict nonviolent conflict resolution framework which been applied in several African countries including Nigeria, Angola, Liberia etc. Findings from the study also shows that the implementation of DDR programme in Africa is faced with series of challenges yet it has helped in transforming and resettling several ex-combatants and warlords back to normal civil society. Thus, for any DDR programme to be effective, attention must be paid to monitoring, supervision and the general welfare needs of ex-combatants and trainees in order to build trust and confidence from all the parties and stakeholders.

This article draws on the experience of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programs on the African continent. It explains the link between DDR in Africa and the evolution of post-conflict peacebuilding as envisioned by former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the phases of the DDR process, the actors involved in the practice of DDR—both within the UN system and outside. Seven case studies are used to illustrate how DDR programs have been implemented, the lessons that have been learned as a result, and the challenges that are yet to be overcome. A general evaluation of DDR is provided in the conclusion, which taps into discussions and recommendations emerging from a 2006 conference held on the subject at the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC) in Accra, Ghana.

ABSTRACTProgrammes of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) are increasingly implemented in contexts of violent extremist conflict. In such settings, DDR practitioners may need to distinguish between ex-combatants who can be safely reintegrated into civilian life, and ex-combatants who are likely to present a danger to the community in terms of violent and/or extremist re-offending. To help practitioners make this assessment, this paper explores how risk assessment tools used by psychologists in criminal justice settings may be adapted to screen for violent extremist offenders in DDR programmes. The findings suggest that the method of structured professional judgment (SPJ) can be used to assess the risk that individual ex-combatants will re-offend upon return to civilian life. By extension, SPJ can also: (1) help practitioners to understand what type of deradicalization and disengagement programming former members of extremist groups may require and (2) contribute to decisions concerning the release of ex-combatants from prisons and transitional DDR centres.

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.

An increasing number of African states are undergoing transitions from conflict to peace, highlighting persistent infringements on civilians' rights, whether perpetrated by political authorities, driven by economic interests, or rooted in enduring historical legacies. In response to these complex post-conflict dynamics, the frameworks of Transitional Justice and Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) have emerged as both academic fields of inquiry and instruments of political practice. These mechanisms primarily aim to address large-scale human rights violations and facilitate the reconstruction of a lawful civil order. Contemporary scholarship and practitioners of DDR and transitional justice focus on identifying the most viable and legitimate means of confronting past injustices while fostering sustainable peace. This study critically examines the shortcomings of transitional justice mechanisms, DDR processes, and truth commissions in their efforts to achieve reconciliation and stability in post-conflict Sierra Leone. It is argued that these shortcomings, along with the persistence of structural violence in the post-conflict context, stem from a lack of coordination toward a unified objective and the failure to implement Johan Galtung’s "Transcend" approach. Furthermore, the research identifies key limitations in the operationalization of truth commissions, particularly their inadequate engagement with Track II diplomacy, insufficient implementation of lustration practices, and neglect of participatory legitimacy. These deficiencies have ultimately contributed to the unfulfilled objectives of peacebuilding initiatives in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

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.

This paper examines the Rwandan experience of Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) from 1997 to 2008, with a view to x-raying the nature, pattern, principles, and legacies of DDR in that context, in addition to setting agenda for the practice of DDR elsewhere in Africa. By way of a desk exegesis, the paper posits that DDR was significantly successful given the fact that it led to successful demobilisation and reintegration of a large number of ex-combatants who participated in the Rwanda crisis. The paper notes, however that the Rwanda DDR failed to a large extent in disarming and demobilizing many of the ex-armed groups operating in the country and its proximate region. In the light of the limited success of the Rwandan DDR efforts, it is therefore recommended that future DDR programmes in Africa should be holistic and pragmatic enough to address the concerns of DDR within the formal military sector as well as frontiers of militia formations. This entails considering DDR not merely as a Security Sector Reform (SSR), but essentially, an effort at state building in conflict and post-conflict situations.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the significance of Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) interventions in post-conflict rehabilitation, specifically focusing on their role in ensuring sustainable peace and security sector reforms in South Sudan.
 Methodology: This study employed a comprehensive approach to evaluate the impact of DDR programs in South Sudan. It involved a critical review of academic literature, reports, mitigation programs, and credible news sources from reputable organizations to assess the effectiveness of DDR initiatives in promoting long-term peace and stability.
 Findings: The findings underscored the crucial function of DDR programs in post-conflict security within South Sudan. They highlighted the positive effects of DDR interventions in fostering reconciliation, curbing arms proliferation, and facilitating the successful reintegration of former combatants into society.
 Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: This study will contribute to both theoretical understanding and practical implementation by emphasizing the indispensable role of consistent international support for DDR initiatives in fragile post-conflict environments like South Sudan. It recommended continued investment in DDR programs to sustain peace-building efforts and enhance security sector reforms in the region.

Programmes for the Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) of ex-combatants have become an important part of the package of measures carried out under the heading of ‘peacebuilding’. They deal with a wide variety of aims in support of a eace process, from security concerns, stabilisation, and management of spoilers, to social and economic recovery of the country involved. If anything, they have been a victim of their own success, in the sense that they can be seen as something to be applied in most situations, although many voices warn that each DDR programme must relate to its particular context and conflict (for example, Stockholm Initiative on DDR 2006: pp. 41–45; Integrated DDR Standards 2006). The lessons learned have led to a discussion of ‘second generation DDR’, which proposes a wider range of options, so that programmes can be more flexible and responsive to the local context and to input from the communities involved (Specht 2010; Colletta and Muggah 2009; UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations 2010).