No description available.

In recent times traditional justice processes have become increasingly adapted to serve as transitional justice tools in post-conflict societies. The healing potential of traditional justice is becoming more recognized, nevertheless there is still little known about its impact on collective trauma and especially about the causal mechanisms behind it. To contribute to this research field, this study is guided by the following research question: Why do some traditional justice processes generate the healing of collective trauma after conflict more than others?The developed theoretical framework argues that bottom-up, locally-led traditional justice processes foster voluntary community engagement which enhances collective trauma healing. Top-down, institutionalized processes, on the other hand, are theorized to produce involuntary contact which leads to lower levels of collective healing. It is thus hypothesized that locally-led traditional justice processes are more likely to generate healing of collective trauma than institutionalized traditional justice processes. An in-depth comparative case study which uses Structured Focused Comparison, analyzes the Rwandan Gacaca trials and the traditional justice processes in Acholiland. The empirical findings lend support to the hypothesis and provide modest support to the proposed causal mechanism.

Magister Legum - LLM / In the past, analyses of Uganda’s Transitional Justice legal and policy measures on truth-seeking have been focussed on evaluating the efficacy of a truth commission. However, being cognizant of the limitations entailed in taking that approach, this research adopts a more comprehensive examination of the problem, assessing the viability of all the known truth-seeking avenues and the opportunities they present in enabling Uganda to effectively address the challenge of enforcing accountability for past violations. The research uses a doctrinal study to demonstrate that even if Uganda were to adopt a truth commission as a truth-seeking initiative, there are no guarantees for its success. In fact, the research illustrates that, given the political context of there being no actual transition, a truth commission is more likely to fail and may only be used to achieve political rather than truth and justice objectives. Yet, the research finds that the current Transitional Justice discourse and the recent enactment of the National Transitional Justice Policy 2019 present good opportunity for the incorporation of traditional justice mechanisms into Uganda’s formal justice processes to enhance their truth-seeking capability.

Par l'étude comparative de différents conflits africains, cette recherche a pour but de démontrer l'importance des pratiques traditionnelles africaines de justice au sein des processus de résolution de conflit. De nombreux exemples tels que la Sierra Leone, la République Centrafricaine, le Rwanda, l'Ouganda, le Darfour, ou encore le Mozambique, démontrent que chaque État possède sa propre expérience de justice transitionnelle. Lorsque les victimes deviennent les bourreaux, et que les bourreaux sont eux-mêmes des victimes, il devient alors impossible de se reposer sur des modèles de justice préconçus. Sur le continent africain, comme ailleurs, la justice transitionnelle nécessite d'être adaptées aux spécificités des contextes politiques, historiques et structurels de chaque conflit. Par ailleurs, les mécanismes qui composent aujourd'hui la justice transitionnelle, que ce soit à l'échelon international, national, ou local, se doivent de travailler de concert au service de la reconstruction d'un pacte social entre les populations. Il faudra donc réussir à créer des liens entre ces mécanismes, afin que la justice post-conflit représente un atout efficace pour la paix et la réconciliation. L'ambition de ce projet est d'adopter une vision plurielle et renouvelée de la Justice au service de la réconciliation en Afrique et répondant davantage aux attentes des populations impliquées, et de formuler des propositions en vue d'une complémentarité plus efficace entre les différents instrument de la justice transitionnelle. / Through a comparative study of different African conflicts, this research aims at underlying the need for complementarity between the different judicial and extra-judicial mechanisms of the transitional justice process. Sierra Leone, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Uganda, Darfur, Mozambique, every post-conflict situation has its own experience of Transitional Justice. There is no pre-conceived solution to solve a conflict, where the frontier between victims and perpetrators is constantly shaken, and with mass atrocities committed by both sides. Be it International Justice, National Justice, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, or Local and Traditional Justice, none of these mechanisms of Transitional Justice can be efficient if they aren't any linkage between them and if they are not adapted to each specific contexts. For post-conflict justice to be a catalyst toward Reconciliation and a Sustainable Peace, peacemakers have to look deep into the political, the historical, and structural reasons that led to the commission of international crimes. The purpose of this PhD project is to encourage the adoption of a renewed plural vision of Justice in Africa, which would meet more specifically the needs of the war-torn population for a long-term peaceful society.

En réponse aux cycles de violences de masse et à la guerre civile qui ont jalonné son histoire douloureuse, le Burundi s’est engagé dans un processus de justice transitionnelle, officiellement depuis la signature des Accords de paix d’Arusha en 2000. Malgré la mobilisation des énergies internationales et l’omniprésence de la problématique au sein du débat public depuis douze ans, seules des consultations nationales destinées à recueillir l’avis de la population burundaise sur le sujet ont été organisées en 2009. Á l’aube de la mise en place d’une Commission Nationale de Vérité et de Réconciliation, à laquelle devrait être associé un tribunal spécial, le constat de la nature globale de la justice transitionnelle s’impose. Cette globalité s’exprime à travers le recours à des instruments à la fois judiciaires et extra-judiciaires mais également à des outils ayant vocation à s’appliquer de façon immédiate (ou conjoncturelle) et durable (ou structurelle). D’une part, dans une perspective normative et légaliste, le processus global de justice transitionnelle semble être cause d’inerties et de blocages comme peut a priori l’illustrer le cas du Burundi. D’autre part, à la lumière d’une approche systémique et inclusive, la globalité est au contraire source d’évolutions et d’émulations qui stimulent la créativité de la justice transitionnelle comme le démontre également le Burundi. Cette justice elle-même en transition est en réalité une justice réconciliatrice porteuse de doutes mais aussi d’espoirs. Elle est une justice complexe qui s’invente chaque jour, qui ne peut être efficace et efficiente qu’à condition d’être adaptée, légitime et appropriée par ceux à qui elle est destinée. Elle implique que soient trouvées des réponses satisfaisantes aux souffrances et aux besoins indissociables des victimes et des auteurs des violences de masse d’hier et des injustices sociales d’aujourd’hui. Elle a aussi pour ambition de prévenir la commission des crimes du futur en participant au renforcement de l’État de droit et, de façon plus globale, de rompre avec l’histoire de violences symboliques et actives subies et perpétrées au Burundi. / As an answer to cycles of mass violence in Burundi, a transitional justice process has been opened. The Burundian case study presents some particularities among this kind of process. Whereas the Arusha peace and reconciliation agreement for Burundi in 2000 decided setting up two transitional justice instruments, a special court and a Truth Reconciliation Commission, the transitional justice process has not begun yet. Only National Consultations were organized in 2009. The negotiations and the mediation occurred during the ongoing war. There were no winners and no losers but just armed men who decided to discuss in order to conquer the power and then to keep it. That may explain why negotiations were so longer and staggered. A sort of consociativisme system was set up in Burundi as the model organization of power-sharing. Inside the politic game of power-sharing the peace-justice dilemma appears through instrumentalization of retributive justice which is assimilated to justice and the truth and pardon which claim referring to peace. Another particularity is found regarding numerous judicial and legal reforms relatively to children rights, lands conflict, electoral law or Criminal Code. On the eve of the implementation of the Truth Reconciliation Commission, the global nature of the transitional justice process is obvious. The Burundian context appears as an illustration of the extensive meaning of transitional justice which represents a justice in transition. The global nature of the matter is emerging through its temporal and disciplinary versatility. On one hand, transitional justice seems to be past justice, currently justice and future justice at the same time and on the other hand it may take several forms out of the official one, initially predicted. In a legalist and normative view, global nature of justice in transition might cause deadlock regarding the case of Burundi. In a systemic and multidisciplinary perspective, global nature of justice in transition reveals change capacities according to the case of Burundi. What really matter in such transitional justice process is relieving victims and perpetrators’sufferings which are undeniably linked and bringing answers to each protagonist of the crime as to the society with the permanent and ambitious aim of reconciliation.