Abstract:
"This draft article examines the role of transitional
justice in societies emerging from conflict. Fundamentally, it addresses
the ways in which the context of conflict resolution shapes the
transitional justice mechanisms which emerge and constrains their
implementation. The paper argues that transitional justice measures need
to be understood as having a critical political settlement dimension,
and as closely intertwined with the bargaining processes of political
elites. These processes are important to non-repetition of human rights
violations. The paper sets out the factors which influence design of
transitional justice mechanisms, and in conclusion it suggests
strategies for improving international intervention in the area."
The article follows a long discussion between the peace imperative (ending the conflict) and the rights-based approach imperative (respect of human rights and justice) that has been going on for a while. These two imperatives are at odds mostly because they come about from different perspectives, one is a bargaining process among the stakeholders while the latter is a normative/principled process (with very little room for negotiation). While this discussion is not new, what Bell brings into the table is that transitional justice mechanisms are, in their design and implementation, also bargaining processes and a continuation of conflict objectives. The fact that the external appearance of the mechanism may similar across countries (Truth Commissions, Special Tribunals, etc..) should not blind us to the fact they represent a political dynamic and are shaped by the narrative of both the conflict and the aimed future.
Overall is a call to more contextual knowledge in both design and intervention, a point that everybody agrees with and yet we keep falling short time and again.
No comments:
Post a Comment