Transitional Justice and Children

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.

Psychosocial Support for Children

In recent years, political transitions have become a major area of interest to private actors, including philanthropies. More and more philanthropic foundations have chosen to donate money to support transitional justice processes across the globe. However, philanthropies often take on not only the role of a funder but also the role of an active participant in transitional justice (TJ) mechanisms. They push for the building of long-lasting partnerships with state authorities and international organizations, and, sometimes, take over and administer certain transitional justice processes. As a result, philanthropic foundations wield considerable power in transitional justice, especially when the state cannot or will not act. Given the significant and growing role of philanthropy in both established democracies and states in transition, it is necessary to look more closely at issues of philanthropic involvement in TJ processes. Their activity remains largely outside the margins of international law scholarship. This article aims to make philanthropic contributions a more visible object of scholarly scrutiny. This article will introduce the legal problems related to “philanthropic justice,” including concerns that speak for the need of more attention to the phenomenon. It will first show how private foundations engage in transitional justice mechanisms and spell out the concerns related to this philanthropic engagement in transitional justice. It will proceed with a discussion about the potential reasons why private foundations engage in international legal matters such as transitional justice. Further, the article will explore the United Nations’ legal frameworks on cooperation with the philanthropic sector. The last substantial part will cover the issues of responsibility of private actors under international law and why it is important in the context of transitional justice.

This book engages the limits of transitional justice and, more specifically, the interface between transitional justice and the related concept of transformative justice. Challenging and developing the work of transitional justice scholars and practitioners, the book addresses both the limitations of existing mechanisms in contexts where they are currently applied, as well as the possibilities for using, or adapting, transitional justice mechanisms in contexts typically viewed as outside their usual remit. More specifically, chapters address shortcomings with regard to victim participation in transitional justice mechanisms in Cambodia; consider how the transformative justice framework might be mobilised to overcome limitations of standard approaches to transitional justice in addressing structural violence in post-conflict Colombia; and address how the concept of transformative justice could be used to address historical wrongs in post-apartheid South Africa and post-war Bosnia-Herzegovina. Further chapters explore the intersections of identity and culture with transitional and transformative justice, consider the role of elites in transitional and transformative justice, and put forward the case for applying a broader approach to historical truth telling than is typical in transitional justice.

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.

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.

This article examines a dilemma facing architects of transitional justice processes within the framework of a permanent constitution. According to the dilemma, if the transition is successful the permanent constitution is replaced; if the permanent constitution remains in place, the transition is rendered impossible. The dilemma is illustrated by the 'constitutional replacement doctrine' of the Colombian Constitutional Court, which has held that constitutional amendments (including transitional justice mechanisms) which 'replace' essential principles of the constitution are a species of 'unconstitutional constitutional amendment' and are invalid. There is undeniable logic to this doctrine—a constitutional change which degrades the fabric of a constitution by ousting its underlying principles should require the enactment of a new constitution, rather than a process of amendment. However, applied in a rigid fashion, doctrines of this sort render processes of transitional justice within the framework of a permanent constitution impossible. This in turn presents a major obstacle for both transitional justice and constitutionalism in post-conflict societies. The recent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court applying the 'replacement doctrine' to the current peace process with the Armed Revolutionary Force of Colombia, however, suggests a middle way: transitional constitutional amendments which might trigger the doctrine are nonetheless constitutional if they are enacted consistently with the international and transnational framework for transitional justice, assessed by means of a balancing test, whereas a strict syllogistic application of the doctrine is called only for in cases of suspected 'abusive constitutionalism'. This article analyzes and endorses the Constitutional Court's revised doctrine. The solution presented here recognizes that, although the design of a successful process of transitional justice is likely to 'replace' the existing constitution with something substantially different, it should be regarded as 'constitutional' if the transitional justice mechanisms only limit essential principles of the permanent constitution in the degree that is required for the adopted mechanisms to achieve their goals. The result is an internationally nuanced notion of 'transitional constitutionalism'.

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.

Šiame straipsnyje analizuojama pereinamojo laikotarpio teisingumo studijų būklė, įvertinami atlikti tyrimai, aptariama jų raida, kartu pateikiant atsakymus į kelis probleminius klausimus. Pirmiausia, kas lėmė vyraujančias tyrimų kryptis. Antra, kokios yra esminės šio studijų lauko teorinės bei metodologinės problemos. Trečia, kokių duomenų ir kokio pobūdžio tyrimų šioje srityje vis dar trūksta. Ši analizė grindžiama prielaida, kad tokio pobūdžio akademinė savirefleksija naudinga ne tik patiems pereinamojo laikotarpio teisingumo tyrėjams, bet ir pereinamojo laikotarpio teisingumo strategijas įgyvendinantiems nacionaliniams ar tarptautiniams veikėjams.

Transitional justice has addressed only conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) while excluding sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA). This exclusion persists despite both SEA and CRSV occurring during armed conflict, taking the same forms, impacting congruent victim populations, and falling within the Women, Peace and Security framework. SEA is perpetrated by international intervenors such as peacekeepers and aid workers. Excluding SEA denies victims a critical pathway to accountability and undermines prevention efforts for all forms of sexual violence. Using the original Gender Violence in Truth Commissions database, this article examines why SEA is excluded from transitional justice. To date, only two transitional justice mechanisms—the Sierra Leonian and Liberian truth commissions—have addressed SEA by intervenors. Analysis of these two exceptional cases reveals barriers to inclusion of SEA within transitional justice, including intervenor-involvement in transitional justice mechanisms, issues with SEA reporting and data, and dependency on media coverage and public outcry. The article concludes with policy recommendations for addressing SEA and CRSV as separate but related violations through transitional justice mechanisms, including truth commissions and reparations programmes.

This chapter considers the impact of transitional justice mechanisms on intergroup conflict. Specifically, it discusses two of the most popular and large-scale transitional justice methods, namely, justice-based mechanisms and truth commissions. The chapter not only explores arguments about how these mechanisms can improve intergroup relations but also considers the limitations associated with each. It argues that transitional justice mechanisms can create a context where intergroup relations can be fostered, but equally they carry risks and could aggravate intergroup conflict. The chapter concludes that multiple transitional justice mechanisms are needed in societies moving out of conflict (e.g., justice-based approaches, reparations, and truth commissions), but that transitional justice processes are only part of what is needed to address intergroup conflict. Complementary processes are necessary to maximize the impact of transitional justice mechanisms on intergroup relations, and vice versa. Such processes include ensuring social justice and sustaining programs aimed at addressing intergroup conflict (e.g., dialogue, contact, reconciliation programs).

This book explores the role of actors in determining transitional justice in peacebuilding contexts. In recent decades, transitional justice mechanisms and processes have been introduced to a variety of settings, becoming widely regarded as essential elements in the ‘peacebuilding toolbox’. While it has increasingly been suggested that transitional justice is imposed by neo-imperial actors with little regard for the needs and cultures of local populations, evidence suggests that dismissing these policies as neo-imperial or neo-liberal impositions would result in grossly overlooking their dynamics, which involve a whole range of relevant actors operating at multiple levels. This book interrogates this theme through empirical analysis of three sites of peacebuilding that have seen extensive international involvement: Kosovo, East Timor and Afghanistan. It proposes a novel framework for analysing and approaching transitional justice in peacebuilding that disaggregates three broad sets of actors operating at different levels in relevant processes: external actors (international and regional levels), transitional justice promoters (local, national, international and transnational levels), and transitional regimes (national and local levels). The book argues that transitional justice in peacebuilding must be conceived of as actor-contingent and malleable due to the significance of agency and (inter)actions of key categories of actors throughout peacebuilding transition. This book will be of interest to students and practitioners of transitional justice, peacebuilding, law, and International Relations.

Most post-conflict societies are defined by poverty, unemployment, social injustice and gender inequality, making them an ideal environment for trafficking in human beings (THB) to flourish. Against this backdrop, the necessity for transitional justice processes to address THB and its underlying causes has been recognised. Trafficking for sexual exploitation in particular has received global attention and has triggered heated debates, and while it has been met by significant policy reform at the global, regional and national levels such initiatives have often proven to have dangerous consequences for women’s rights. At the forefront of THB initiatives are the women who work in the sex industry. Using Cambodia and Myanmar as case studies, we demonstrate in this chapter how transitional justice mechanisms and processes can facilitate women’s empowerment by engaging better with counter-trafficking efforts. We call for the field of transitional justice to expand its mandate beyond formal mechanisms to encompass efforts that aim to achieve durable peace by addressing deep-rooted gender inequalities leading to widespread human rights abuses. Bringing THB within the transitional justice discourse can facilitate creating policy initiatives that do not occur at the expense of undermining the already fragile status and position of women in transitional societies.

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

The core of the argument of this article is that the integration of Islamic notions of justice into transitional justice mechanisms in the MENA makes for a more viable and sustainable transitional justice process in the region. This would mean a critical cultural value in the MENA is given a place in dealing with the past and mapping out a sustainable future in the region. The argument here is premised on the logic that a social transformation-focused enterprise like transitional justice ought to engage with Islam for sustainable outcomes in societies in the MENA where Islam is very influential. Given the significant role and influence of Islam on cultural, socio-political and legal institutions in the MENA, a process of transitional justice that takes account of Islamic values and practices is important for negotiating justice and institutionalising reforms in societies in the region.