Transitional Justice and Civil War: Exploring New Pathways, Challenging Old Guideposts

Abstract

Transitional justice has shifted from its primary use in addressing past atrocities of authoritarian regimes to those acts of violence committed during civil wars. Yet the use of transitional justice mechanisms in this new context is not well understood. Drawing from the existing transitional justice literature, this article generates a set of testable hypotheses to explore which factors influence the use of particular mechanisms during and after conflict. It then tests those hypotheses in 151 cases of civil war by using a cross-national data base of all countries in the world and their adoption of transitional justice 1 The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript; but any errors are of course our own. 1 Reiter et al.: Transitional Justice and Civil War Published by Scholarship@Western, 2013 138 Transitional Justice and Civil War Transitional Justice Review, Vol.1, Iss.1, 2012, 137-169 processes from 1970-2007. This article further provides a preliminary analysis of the success of those mechanisms in obtaining and securing peace. The article concludes that amnesties remain more prevalent than trials during and after conflict, particularly in Africa and Asia. During conflict, higher death tolls are associated with the use of trials and amnesties, and longer wars with the use of all types of mechanisms. After conflict ends, however, longer wars and higher death tolls are associated with accountability, and the presence of international peacekeepers is associated with all types of mechanisms. Finally, we find that transitional justice—regardless of the particular form it takes—does not jeopardize the peace process, and that amnesties may be an effective tool to help end conflict.