Little is known about the effects of transitional justice on the development of the rule of law in post-conflict states. There are assumptions in the literature that the prosecution of those responsible for human rights violations or convening a truth commission will help improve the rule of law. Using a mixed-method approach, which combined statistical analysis with in-country fieldwork, this investigation found that the impact of transitional justice, particularly trials, on the development of the rule of law is minimal and not automatic. In each of the four states examined, Colombia, Peru, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, meaningful effects from transitional justice were blocked by powerful post-conflict inhibiters, including a lack of state capacity, ethnicity and corruption. These findings indicate that prior assumptions about the relationship between transitional justice and the rule of law are overstated, and they point to the need for policymakers to simultaneously address these and other inhibiters while implementing transitional mechanisms.

Depuis plus d’une décennie, la République Centrafricaine (ci-après le Centrafrique ou la RCA) et la République de Côte d’Ivoire (ci-après la RCI ou la Côte d’Ivoire) traversent des conflits militaro-politiques graves qui se sont accentués pour le premier en 2012 et pour le second en 2011. Ces crises qui, dans la plupart des cas tirent leurs racines dans la mal gouvernance et une absence de volonté politique ont un dénominateur commun : des dégâts matériels importants et en perte de vies humaines. Des crimes graves dans la hiérarchie de l’horreur ont été commis (crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité et crimes de génocide). Compte tenu de la gravité de ces crimes qui transcendent profondément la conscience humaine, les deux pays ont engagé des processus de justice transitionnelle, à travers des mesures judiciaires et non judiciaires en vue de faire face à leur passé douloureux et réconcilier les populations et communautés divisées. Comment intégrer la Justice dans une stratégie plus globale du processus transitionnel pour la réconciliation nationale favorable à un nouvel avenir démocratique ?Certes, la répression de ces crimes par les tribunaux centrafricains et ivoiriens, la Cour Pénale Internationale (CPI), la Cour Pénale Spéciale (CPS) en RCA ou au titre de la compétence universelle de juridiction est un objectif prioritaire poursuivi par les deux pays. Cependant, la justice classique s’est montrée incapable d’en juger tous les auteurs, tant leur nombre est important et tant les faits qui leurs sont reprochés sont graves. C’est pourquoi les autorités centrafricaines et ivoiriennes ont envisagé d’autres mécanismes complémentaires à la justice pénale destinés à rétablir un vivre ensemble entre les populations divisées, notamment la création des Commissions Vérité et Réconciliation. Elle est chargée d’établir une vérité historique sur les crimes du passé en vue de tourner définitivement la page. En dehors de cette institution classique de la réconciliation nationale, d’autres structures ont été créées, soit pour combler les lacunes des précédentes initiatives, soit pour connaître d’autres domaines nouveaux. La religion a aussi joué un rôle important; soit qu’elle promeut la tolérance religieuse, l’acceptation des différences ou la résolution pacifique des conflits, soit qu’elle apparaît comme cause de conflits, à travers la promotion ou la diffusion des messages de haine et de division.Mais dans la démarche de conciliation de ces deux objectifs, comment entreprendre le processus de réconciliation nationale sans pour autant avaliser les pratiques d’impunité ? C’est en ce sens que la répression des crimes graves apparaît comme un mécanisme nécessaire de la justice transitionnelle.Enfin, il est important de noter que les crises que connaissent les deux pays obéissent à des mobiles politiques, mais aussi institutionnels. C’est pourquoi des réformes institutionnelles ont été engagées dans plusieurs domaines, entre autres, la Réforme du Secteur de la Sécurité (RSS) avec le désarmement, la démobilisation et la réinsertion des tous les combattants. Des réformes ont aussi été entreprises dans le domaine de la bonne gouvernance et de la justice constitutionnelle pour que désormais, les actions des gouvernants soient soumises au droit. / For more than a decade, the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (RCI or the Ivory Coast) are going through serious military-political conflicts which have been accentuated for the Central African Republic in 2012 and for RCI in 2011. These crises, which in most cases are rooted in poor governance and lack of political will have a common denominator: significant material damage and loss of life. Serious crimes in the hierarchy of horror have been committed (war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide). Given the seriousness of these crimes that profoundly transcend human consciousness, both countries have engaged in transitional justice processes, through judicial and non-judicial measures to deal with their painful past and reconcile divided populations and communities. How to integrate justice into a more global strategy of the transitional process for national reconciliation in favour of a new democratic future?It is true that the repression of these crimes by the Central African and Ivorian courts, the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Special Criminal Court (SPC) in CAR or under universal jurisdiction is a priority objective pursued by both countries. However, classical justice has proved incapable of judging all the authors, as their number is important and the facts they are accused of are serious. This is why the Central African and Ivorian authorities have considered complimentary mechanisms to criminal justice aimed at restoring living together among the divided populations, materialized by the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CDVR). It is responsible for establishing a historical truth about the crimes committed in order to definitively turn the page. Apart from this classical institution of national reconciliation, other structures have been created, either to fill the gaps of previous initiatives or to find other new areas. Religion has also played an important role; either it promotes religious tolerance, acceptance of differences or peaceful resolution of conflicts, or it appears as a cause of conflict, through messages of hatred and division.But in this process of reconciling these two objectives, how can we begin the process of national reconciliation without endorsing practices of impunity? It is in this sense that the repression of serious crimes appears as a necessary mechanism of transitional justice.Finally, it is important to note that the crises in both countries are politically motivated, but also institutional. This is why institutional reforms have been initiated in several areas, including Security Sector Reform (SSR) with the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of all combatants. Reforms have also been undertaken in the field of good governance and constitutional justice so that, henceforth, the actions of the rulers are subject to the law.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is a major landmark in the development of international accountability. Its preamble affirms “that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation”. Thus the signatory states were “determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes”. The ICC contributes to the fight against impunity and the establishment of the rule of law by punishing violations of international legal norms. Accountability is important for the past and the future of societies. The ICC needs the support and cooperation of the states to effectively perform its mandate. So without ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute the ICC will not have jurisdiction over non-member states, unless referred by the UN Security Council. The Rome Statute does not only create the ICC but it also creates the national jurisdiction of its States Parties as these states have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes. With only five Arab states to date being State Parties to the Rome Statute, it is obvious that the region is underrepresented at the ICC. Despite their positive role played in the creation of the ICC, not ratifying the Rome Statute raises several questions, especially that the majority of states that voted against the Statute were from the Arab region. Ratifying and implementing the Rome Statute will strengthen the Arab states criminal justice system, enabling them to prosecute international crimes domestically and will deter any individual from committing them in the future, regardless his official position. It will also allow the Arab states to have the primary jurisdiction over international crimes and reinforces the entire judicial system. This research will examine the issue of ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute by the Arab states by analysing the reasons, challenges and obstacles of the Arab states for not becoming part of the international criminal justice system.

Transitional justice has undergone tremendous shifts since it was first used in Latin American and Eastern European countries to address post-authoritarian and post-communist legacies of atrocity and repression. In particular, the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has increased the demand for prosecutions within a field that was previously marked by compromise and non-prosecution. While there are increasing expectations that countries with unresolved claims of human rights abuses should enact transitional justice policies, most of the literature on the subject largely omits to explain how elites from those countries choose among the possible options of transitional justice, and specifically, how they choose among international prosecutions, domestic prosecutions, and truth-seeking. Using case studies of Kenya and Uganda, this dissertation examines this decision-making process to understand how elites choose and reject different transitional justice policies. Theoretically, the research examines how preferences for transitional justice policies are constituted through “judicial statecraft”: the strategic efforts by heterogeneous, interest-pursuing elites to use justice-related policies as carrots and sticks in the overall contestation of power. The research finds that the choices of elites about judicial statecraft depend on three factors: the extent to which the elites are secure that their policy choices cannot be subverted from within; the cost and credibility of transitional justice threats; and the effects, both intended and unintended, of history.

Les violations aux droits humains causent des milliers de victimes chaque année, des mécanismes de justice sont élaborés afin de répondre à ces crimes, mais les victimes demeurent peu consultées. Par le biais d’entretiens semi-directifs, cette étude présente le point de vue et les attentes des victimes de crimes contre l’humanité du Cambodge et du Rwanda sur la justice. La justice sociale constitue le cadre théorique de cette étude. Les résultats montrent que la justice pénale est centrale à la définition de la justice. La réparation et la vérité en constituent aussi les éléments essentiels. Toutefois, la capacité des tribunaux à rendre compte de la vérité est critiquée par les répondants créant un écart entre ce qu’elles veulent et ce qu’elles obtiennent. La qualité de la prise de décision et du traitement interpersonnel favorise aussi la perception de justice du point de vue des victimes. Les différentes composantes de la justice perçues, comme la punition, la réparation et la procédure, varient toutefois en fonction du contexte social et historique de la victimisation. / Human rights violations cause thousands of victims every year. Justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, have been developed to respond to these crimes, but victims remain under consulted. In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with Rwandan and Cambodian victims of crimes against humanity. Using social justice theories as a theoretical framework, this study examines victims’ perceptions of justice. The results show that while criminal justice is central in victims’ definition of justice, reparation and truth also are essential components. However, the criminal court’s ability to achieve truth is criticized by respondents creating a gap between the truth that they seek and the truth that they obtain. The quality of decision-making as well as how victims are treated also contribute to victims’ perception of justice. However, victims’ justice objectives vary according to the social and historic context.

Les violations aux droits humains causent des milliers de victimes chaque année, des mécanismes de justice sont élaborés afin de répondre à ces crimes, mais les victimes demeurent peu consultées. Par le biais d’entretiens semi-directifs, cette étude présente le point de vue et les attentes des victimes de crimes contre l’humanité du Cambodge et du Rwanda sur la justice. La justice sociale constitue le cadre théorique de cette étude. Les résultats montrent que la justice pénale est centrale à la définition de la justice. La réparation et la vérité en constituent aussi les éléments essentiels. Toutefois, la capacité des tribunaux à rendre compte de la vérité est critiquée par les répondants créant un écart entre ce qu’elles veulent et ce qu’elles obtiennent. La qualité de la prise de décision et du traitement interpersonnel favorise aussi la perception de justice du point de vue des victimes. Les différentes composantes de la justice perçues, comme la punition, la réparation et la procédure, varient toutefois en fonction du contexte social et historique de la victimisation. / Human rights violations cause thousands of victims every year. Justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, have been developed to respond to these crimes, but victims remain under consulted. In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with Rwandan and Cambodian victims of crimes against humanity. Using social justice theories as a theoretical framework, this study examines victims’ perceptions of justice. The results show that while criminal justice is central in victims’ definition of justice, reparation and truth also are essential components. However, the criminal court’s ability to achieve truth is criticized by respondents creating a gap between the truth that they seek and the truth that they obtain. The quality of decision-making as well as how victims are treated also contribute to victims’ perception of justice. However, victims’ justice objectives vary according to the social and historic context.