Transitional Justice, Institutions and Temporality: Towards a Dynamic Understanding

Pádraig Mcauliffe

doi:10.1163/15718123-bja10060

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the impact of institutionalisation of governance, bureaucracy and rule of law on the timeframes employed for transitional justice. It argues that the urgency of transitional justice has consistently given way to temporally extended justice projects as state strength permits revision of initial leniency in terms of truth, criminal accountability and vetting, while state weaknesses compel the delay of projects pending institutional development or consolidation through long-term peacebuilding missions. Furthermore, a more recent focus on transformative social change that looks at economic root causes of conflict would require states and policy-makers to use a longer, multigenerational timeframe for action. In the absence of theoretical work on how these multi-generational commitments might be realised, this article draws on literature in the field of development to outline a plausible model for how transitional justice, peacebuilding and development are dynamically realised over time. It argues that for transitional justice to be even minimally transformative, it must be embedded in top-down developmental institutions of government sufficiently robust to implement recommendations. It must also be embedded in bottom-up developmental coalitions whose everyday political contests can shape the structure and effects of these institutions over time.

Highlights

As its very name would suggest, transitional justice is inherently defined by its temporality
It argues that the urgency of transitional justice has consistently given way to temporally extended justice projects as state strength permits revision of initial leniency in terms of truth, criminal accountability and vetting, while state weaknesses compel the delay of projects pending institutional development or consolidation through long-term peacebuilding missions
In the absence of theoretical work on how these multi-generational commitments might be realised, this article draws on literature in the field of development to outline a plausible model for how transitional justice, peacebuilding and development are dynamically realised over time

Summary

Introduction

As its very name would suggest, transitional justice (tj) is inherently defined by its temporality. The international community engaged in an increasing number of long, intensive missions that endured without a clear exit strategy, shifting towards more ‘ordinary’ international development once initial transitional tasks like ddr, elections and return of refugees was completed.[76] Consolidation takes years of relationship-building and problem-solving—ten to fifteen years is usually posited as the timeframe within which the endurance of a peace agreement can last.[77] Respectful, non-violent social discourse between enemies may be the stuff of decades.[78] Even the most condensed form of statebuilding takes at least ten years to achieve a degree of stable statehood.[79] Basic ‘inclusive enough’ democracy takes a number of election cycles, as much as 15–20 years.[80] Whereas democratisation in its more substantive sense of consistent control of public decisions by citizens took months in East-Central Europe and Latin America, ‘decades rather than years, centuries rather than decades’ may be the timescale for post-conflict democracy.[81] tj needed to grapple with its place in this prolonged temporal sequence of causally connected institutional development through political, social and structural peacebuilding. Those who advocate reorienting the focus of tj towards redressing power-balances at the local level accept that this broadening necessarily extends timeframes to decades.[122]

Towards a Dynamic Understanding of Time

Conclusion