Transitional justice as a research field has for a long time only focused on countries in conflict. However, even established democracies can undergo a process of change and reconciliationprocesses, including the reconciliation process between the Sami and Sweden. The purpose of the study is to map the process of establishing the Truth Commission for the Sami people, and to analyze this process based on central concepts of transitional justice. To examine whether these concepts are suitable for analyzing processes of reconciliation in established democracies. The central concepts of reconciliation, truth, justice, mercy, and peace have thus been used as a theoretical framework to analyze the process of establishing the Truth Commission in Sweden through a qualitative content analysis. The finding show that the theoretical framework cannot fully explain and understand processes of reconciliation in established democracies. Adevelopment of the research field of transitional justice is needed to be able to apply it to the context of established democracies.

No description available.

Transitional Justice bezeichnet staatliche Anstrengungen um vergangene Menschenrechtsverletzungen am Ende von Represionen aufzuarbeiten. Reparationszahlungen an die Opfer, die eines der Hauptinstrumente staatlicher Aufarbeitung darstellen können, blieben in der Transitional Justice-Literatur vergleichweise unerforscht. Dieses Buch versucht diese Lücke zu schließen und fragt, warum manche Staaten solche Programme eingeleitet haben, während andere junge Demokratien darauf verzichteten. Dabei setzt sie Reparationszahlungen in den Kontext anderer Transitional Justice-Maßnahmen und greift gleichzeitig zwei Haupterklärungsansätze für gerichtliche Verfahren und Wahrheitskommissionen auf. In diesem Zusammenhang ist die Frage, inwieweit Transitional Justice aus moralischer Überzeugung oder aus taktischem Kalkül der neuen Eliten eingeleitet wurde. In dem die Arbeit diese Frage am Beispiel der Zahlung von Entschädigungsleistungen diskutiert, kann sie auch Aussagen darüber machen, wie valide die bestehenden Erklärungsansätze für Transitional Justice sind. Anhand der südamerikanischen Regimewechsel in den 1980ern wird aufgezeigt, dass Reparationszahlungen oft zur Legitimation von Amnestien verwendet wurden. Wenn Täter und Opfer relativ starkes Drohpotential besaßen, versuchten Regierungen den Opfern durch Entschädigung entgegenzukommen um Amnestien für die Täter bei gleichzeitiger Anerkennung der Taten zu rechtfertigen. Entschädigungszahlungen wurden somit oft aus strategischen Erwägungen geleistet, was man bei der normativen Bewertung dieser Programme berücksichtigen sollte. / Transitional justice refers to approaches that states use to address past human rights violations at the end of violence and repression. Providing reparations to victims, which can be understood as one of the main instruments of Transitional Justice, has so far received relatively little attention in the Transitional Justice literature. This book tries to fill this gap and asks why some states chose to implement reparation programs while others did not. Putting reparations into context this book adapts explanations for the realization of trials and truth commissions and asks whether they also hold for reparations. The main question is, whether state elites chose Transitional Justice mechanisms for moral or tactical reasons. Hence, by analyzing reparations this book can also help us to reappraise the validity of popular explanations for other Transitional Justice mechanisms. Studying the democratic transitions in South America in the 1980ies this book shows that reparations were often paid to justify amnesty decisions for the perpetrators. When perpetrators and victims posed a credible threat for the incumbents, they implemented reparation programs while crimes of the past went unpunished. In most cases reparations were paid due to tactical convenience rather than moral commitment, which should be considered when we evaluate the concept of reparations.

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Public Administration – Peace Studies, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2017. / Zimbabwe is in dire need of wholesale reform. Gross human rights violations which date back to the pre-colonial period could have been abated in 1980 when the magnanimous policy of national reconciliation promised a new start. The watershed opportunity was, however, lost mainly because no deliberate efforts were made to account for the wrongs of the past in order to start afresh. The result was that Zimbabwe won the independence, but peace remained elusive. This is evidenced in the continued instability, insecurity and uncertainty. The non-retributive pledge had inherent weaknesses; it lacked inclusive participation, hence, no broad ownership. Simply drawing a line between the wounded past and the present, meant burying the past without the prerequisite rituals bent on ensuring non-recurrence. The futility of this blanket amnesty is evident in the sustained legacy of gross human rights abuses and impunity. Political violence has been institutionalised through politicisation of all aspects of life. This research is guided by Lederach’s reconciliation theory which uses Psalms 85:10 to emphasise the importance of commitment in converging the seemingly divergent aspects of truth, peace, justice and mercy into a ‘meeting place’ called reconciliation. Using a mixed methods approach, this research established that the invariably top-bottom approaches massage the symptoms rather than address the root causes of conflicts. The victims’ agitations for revenge and retribution prompted me to design action research processes aimed at engaging the research participants in interactive activities. The action research component aimed at sensitising participants to the merits of letting go of the burdens of the past, and to use scars as reminders of hope and not victimhood. The issues of forgiveness without apology, compensation or even remorse were contentious. However, through give-and-take concessions, the dialogue intervention yielded invaluable by-products such as maximisation of indigenous knowledge systems. Building on the participants’ input, sustainable healing and reconciliation can be achieved through deliberate truth-recovery, the right to justice, reparation, forgiveness and non-recurrence assurances. The research outcomes show that Zimbabwe urgently needs a ‘hybrid’ transitional justice framework based on inclusive participation. Inclusivity is critical because politicians are not necessarily experts in peacebuilding. The yet to be implemented National Peace and Reconciliation Commission can be used as a tool to seek public opinion on how to overcome the entrenched ‘fearology and militarism’ (Oberg 2016) ahead of the watershed 2018 general elections. Uncensored national debates can be used to gather information on the way forward. The multiple merits of Information Communication and Technology should be fully maximised in peacebuilding. / D

This thesis examines the practices of international, national, and localised criminal courts in post-genocide Rwanda. It argues that, although the courts are compatible in law, an interpretive cultural analysis shows that they have often competed with one another. The research draws on interviews conducted with judges, lawyers, and a group of witnesses and suspects from the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the national Rwandan courts, and the gacaca community courts. The courts’ judges and lawyers have interpreted Rwanda’s transitional justice processes very differently. The ICTR has been principally concerned with developing international criminal case law. The national courts purport to have focused on domestic legal reform, while personnel inside gacaca view these local courts as having provided an account of the events and causes of the genocide. This thesis argues that the different interpretations offered within Rwanda’s post-genocide courts illuminate divergent legal cultures inside the institutions, leading to failures in effective cooperation and evidence gathering. The courts have pursued diverse means to try to establish their legitimate authority. However, among a group of Rwandan citizens, the practices of one court were routinely used as the basis to criticise the actions of the others, raising challenges for the legitimacy of transitional justice in Rwanda. The potential for similar competition between domestic and international justice processes is apparent in the current practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, this competition can be mitigated through more effective communication between different justice systems which respond to the needs of the affected populations, fostering a legal culture of complementarity.

In the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, one of the critical elements of the ethnic cleansing regimes was rape and impregnation of women. When the international justice system was created to criminally try the perpetrators of the atrocities, including the rape victims was a new development. Looking at the tribunals and court system from a gendered perspective reveals that the efforts to include rape victims have not taken into account their specific needs, stemming from their trauma. A critical look the ICTY and other criminal courts are presented, as well as recommendations for improving inclusivity and reconciliation.

<p>This research project involves a comparative, cross-national study of truth and reconciliation commissions (TRCs) in countries around the world that have used these extra-judicial institutions to pursue justice and promote national reconciliation during periods of democratic transition or following a civil conflict marked by intense violence and severe human rights abuses. An important objective of truth and reconciliation commissions involves instituting measures to address serious human rights abuses that have occurred as a result of discrimination, ethnocentrism and racism. In recent years, rather than solely utilizing traditional methods of conflict resolution and criminal prosecution, transitional governments have established truth and reconciliation commissions as part of efforts to foster psychological, social and political healing. </p><p>The primary objective of this research project is to determine why there has been a proliferation of truth and reconciliation commissions around the world in recent decades, and assess whether the perceived effectiveness of these commissions is real and substantial. In this work, using a multi-method approach that involves quantitative and qualitative analysis, I consider the institutional design and structural composition of truth and reconciliation commissions, as well as the roles that these commissions play in the democratic transformation of nations with a history of civil conflict and human rights violations. </p><p>In addition to a focus on institutional design of truth and reconciliation commissions, I use a group identity framework that is grounded in social identity theory to examine the historical background and sociopolitical context in which truth commissions have been adopted in countries around the world. This group identity framework serves as an invaluable lens through which questions related to truth and reconciliation commissions and other transitional justice mechanisms can be explored. I also present a unique theoretical framework, the reconciliatory democratization paradigm, that is especially useful for examining the complex interactions between the various political elements that directly affect the processes of democratic consolidation and reconciliation in countries in which truth and reconciliation commissions have been established. Finally, I tackle the question of whether successor regimes that institute truth and reconciliation commissions can effectively address the human rights violations that occurred in the past, and prevent the recurrence of these abuses.</p> / Dissertation

Amnesties are a common feature in peace negotiations. Since the end of the Second World War, 45% of all bargained solutions to conflict included an amnesty provision (Binningsbø  et al., 2012:732). Even though it is such a common feature in modern conflicts, the research on amnesties in relation to peace is surprisingly scarce (ibid:732). Most scholars have studied the legality of amnesties, their legal implications, and their relation to human rights and democracy (Olsen et al., 2012; Bell, 2008; Freeman &amp; Pensky, 2012). During recent years, a debate has sparked between peacemakers and human rights advocates within the transitional justice literature regarding the justifiability of amnesties as a tool in peace negotiations. The debate is commonly referred to as the peace v. justice debate (Sonnenberg &amp; Cavallaro, 2012). Although several scholars have contributed to the debate, no consensus on if and how amnesties are beneficial for peacebuilding has been established. This paper will contribute to the debate by testing a newly developed theory in a comparative study, and strives to answer the question How do different types of amnesties affect prospects of peace?

This essay analyzes in a comparative manner, the cases of Argentina and Uruguay regarding the amnesty laws that both issued to members of the armed forces after the transition to democracy from the authoritarian regime, for violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship. The research seeks to understand the causes that have made the amnesty law in Argentina from 1986 and 1987, together with the presidential pardoning of 1989 to be declared unconstitutional in 2005 and 2007 by the Argentinian Supreme Court, while the Uruguayan amnesty law issued in 1986 is at the time when this research was made still in force. The focus of this study relies on four main actors that have made an impact on this issue: the Executive; the Supreme Court; the Inter-American system of Human Rights; and the human rights movement. Our research intakes a qualitative nature that is the most appropriate method for this kind of study. A comparative methodology is developed studying the cases of Argentina and Uruguay in order to outline similarities and differences between them both, which let us see the different variables that both cases have in an effort to better understand the causes that led to different outcomes regarding the present legal status of the amnesty laws. This essay utilizes as its theoretical framework, theories of Transitional Justice and Human Rights from below, which are applied to the material presented in both cases. In Argentina, the Supreme Court, the Executive, the human rights movement and the Inter-American system of Human Rights, have worked together in the last decade to abolish the amnesty laws and the pardoning in the country. The Supreme Court in Uruguay acting against the Executive power in the last time is seen as a keen factor to why the amnesty law is still in force today. Here, the referendums in 1989 and 2009 supporting the further upholding of the law influenced the decision of the Supreme Court, and also made a negative impact in the human rights movement.

The concept transitional justice refers to a wide range of measures which are applied in times of political and societal transformation. Its starting point is a state of widespread and grave violations of human rights which is typical for undemocratic rules, for times of conflicts including both national and international, but it also existed within some of traditionally democratic countries such as Canada or New Zealand in a form of systematic discrimination against the indigenous population. The target of transitional justice measures is to establish democratic system which protects human rights and fundamental freedoms as a reliable guarantee of sustainable peace. Transitional justice is sometimes considered to fall within measures strengthening the rule of law however some steps such as vetting may temporarily deform the rule of law and equality of citizens before the law which is its integral part. International law regulates transitional justice measures by means of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law. International criminal law, or more generally measures of criminal law nature, has been in modern history the primary response to breaches of human rights. Later, other measures were added including those of judicial and non - judicial...