Private violence, public justice: addressing intimate partner violence in truth commissions

Abstract

ABSTRACT Despite being the most prevalent form of violence in transitional settings emerging from armed conflict or authoritarian repression, intimate partner violence (IPV) has not been explicitly addressed in the mandate or investigation of any truth commission to date. Yet, using my original Gender Violence in Truth Commissions (GVTC) database, I shockingly found that one quarter of all truth commissions include references to IPV in their final reports. This article explores the tension between the lack of explicit inclusion of IPV in transitional justice processes such as truth commissions and the appearance of these references. I first outline the theoretical argument for why IPV should be included within transitional justice mechanisms. Obstacles to explicit inclusion of IPV are then identified, such the belief that it is a “private” form of harm unrelated to armed conflict or authoritarianism. By analyzing GVTC data, I show that IPV theoretically should and practically can be addressed within transitional justice processes, at least within truth commissions, and reveal characteristics that have enabled IPV to emerge within final reports. This article is the first systematic cross-national analysis of IPV within transitional justice, and the first work specifically on IPV and truth commissions.