• Home
• About us
• Document Library
• Research Helpdesk
• Professional Development Directory
• Issues Papers
• Email Bulletin
• Topic Guides
  • Civil service reform
  • Climate change adaptation
  • Communication and governance
  • Conflict
  • Empowerment and accountability
  • Fragile states
  • Gender
  • Human rights
  • Institutional development
  • International legal frameworks for humanitarian action
  • Justice
  • Measuring results
  • Political economy analysis
  • Political systems
  • Security sector reform
  • Service delivery
  • Social exclusion
  • Social protection
  • Statebuilding and peacebuilding
  • State-society relations and citizenship
• Gateway Guides
  • Anti-corruption
  • Decentralisation and local governance
  • Inclusive growth
  • Public financial management and accountability
• Consultancy Services
• Newsfeeds
• Contact us

Transitional justice is prominent in academic debates on democratisation, nation-building and state reconstruction, and has gained widespread support from international organisations. This chapter examines these debates and their practical relevance for conflict transformation and peacebuilding. It argues that not enough research has been done into the impact of transitional justice mechanisms and that therefore they need to be applied with caution. There is a need for more sustained comparative analysis and, above all, more interdisciplinary and mixed methods research on this issue.

Scholars and practitioners agree that societies that have experienced violent conflict need to deal with legacies of the past to prevent a relapse into violence. At the same time it has become clear that mechanisms aiming to promote accountability do not automatically lead to reconciliation and stable peace. Post-war societies need a combination of approaches, including for legal justice/accountability and truth recovery. Activities need to be undertaken from various levels (bottom-up and top-down) and need to address structural, behavioural and attitudinal aspects as well as the context, memory and relationships. Asymmetries in power structures, gender relations and gender-specific experiences of violence also need to be considered.

However, the impact of transitional justice mechanisms is hard to predict given the lack of empirical data. Many gaps and questions remain in theory and practice, including:

• The extent to which transitional justice processes affect people. Studies are preoccupied with institutional design and system-level effects.
• A lack of convincing criteria and knowledge about preconditions for the failure or success of accountability mechanisms. The question remains whether CSOs can effectively push for institutionalised forms of transitional justice while decision-makers in parliaments, governments and administrations are averse to accountability and sustain cultures of denial.
• How truth recovery relates to legal mechanisms, prosecution, compensation, institutional reforms and initiatives for reconciliation. It is still unclear how to get from retributive to restorative approaches.
• What reconciliation processes could look like in societies marked by huge power asymmetries and how notions of victimhood impact on entire societies, what the underlying dynamics are, and how to address victimisation in a constructive way.

Given these continued research gaps and questions, transitional justice analysis needs first of all a sustained focus on the underlying causes of conflict. This is so that trials and truth commissions become an invitation for continuing focus on addressing societal divisions. Furthermore:

• It is important to repeatedly analyse transitional justice mechanisms with respect to their outcome, context and legitimacy in order to develop realistic expectations of their potential and limits.
• Policies need to be based on sound knowledge of the interdependence of different mechanisms, levels and actors. Such knowledge needs to include the interaction of state institutions and CSOs and how top-down policies and bottom-up initiatives relate to each other and can be better connected.
• Research needs to be practice-oriented and should generate policy recommendations. Case studies based on qualitative and multi-disciplinary approaches can provide important insights and prevent peacebuilders from rushing headlong into action based on unrealistic expectations.
• Research needs to involve, as much as possible, partners and actors from the countries in question. Ultimately, it is they who will decide how to come to terms with the past and build relationships for the future.