Search results

This dissertation is about how democracies can respond to economic crises. At its centre is the dilemma that political elites, and societies as a whole, face after such an event –whether to focus exclusively on forward-looking policies that secure a recovery or whether to also address the underlying causes of the crisis, learning the lessons of the past but also weathering the divisiveness and recrimination this exercise is likely to elicit. To engage with this dilemma, this research takes inspiration from the field of transitional justice on how societies can deal with the past, and learn from it. Of special interest are the mechanisms of transitional justice. Truth commissions most prominently, but also prosecutions, reparations, and constitutional reforms. The analysis moves from a cross-country comparison of truth commissions deployed in Iceland, Ireland, and Greece after the Great Recession, to a case study of a comprehensive range of mechanisms deployed in Iceland, to an impact assessment of the most effective of the three truth commission. I will argue that the transitional justice framework brings helpful and practical insights when applied to the study of economic crises in established democracies. It challenges the conventional wisdom that 'business as usual' will prevail after an economic crisis; it also yields principles for designing mechanisms that promote learning from the past and building-in better practices in the future.

Over the course of its war in Ukraine, Russian forces have violated numerous principles of just warfare. When the war ends, two questions will arise: 1) how to restore normal diplomatic and economic relations with Russia; and 2) how to hold those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity accountable. The transitional justice literature sheds light on both issues. Building on the application of transitional justice to relevant postconflict cases, this article suggests how transitional justice principles could be used in postwar Russia.

The article analyzes the theoretical and practical problems that arise during the construction of the Colombian model of transitional justice. The latter is viewed as a combination of judicial and quasi-judicial means, with the help of which it becomes possible to achieve a peaceful settlement after the end of the civil war of 1964–2016. Particular attention is paid to the socio-political context and mass sentiments prevailing in Colombian society regarding the legitimacy of transferring the Anglo-American construction of Transitional Justice to Latin America. The so-called "Integrated System of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition", which is a consolidated version of the four main elements of transitional justice: criminal prosecution, truth seeking, reparations to the innocent victims and "deal with the past", is being studied in detail. In particular, the author dwells on the issue of amnesties for participants in an armed conflict, the activities of the "truth commission" and compensation payments to victims of mass violence. In addition, the article examines the activities of the Colombian Special Jurisdiction for Peace, the relevant statistical data are provided. The "Santrich case" is mentioned as a marker of negative trends that continue to grow in the activities of a new jurisdiction. The conclusion is that the legal means of resolving the conflict are secondary, albeit of absolute importance, in comparison with political agreements, to which all participants of the process of national reconciliation sometimes are not ready organizationally and psychologically.

Abstract Can a lack of transitional justice contribute to democratic backsliding? This paper uses the case of Poland to argue that selective enforcement of transitional justice can be linked to democratic erosion. In doing so, the paper adjudicates between two theories of democratic backsliding. The first, advanced by Milan Svolik, argues that elite polarization drives erosion: when political candidates are ideologically far apart, citizens who strongly prefer one over the other may turn a blind eye to antidemocratic transgressions by their preferred candidate to prevent the competing candidate from winning. The second theory, presented by Nalepa, Vanberg, and Ciopris (NVC), describes an equilibrium where voters are uncertain whether the candidate they are dealing with is a closet autocrat or an ideological incumbent, but reelect him into office regardless. This theory posits that a closet autocrat is reelected into office because his first period actions are identical to those of an ideological incumbent. I argue that judiciary reforms in Poland reflect exactly the kind of incumbent actions that are consistent both with the actions of an ideological incumbent and with the actions of a closet autocrat. Using survey data from Poland, I find evidence of elite polarization, offering support for the first theory, but also find ample evidence of polarization in the electorate and of a belief structure supportive of the equilibrium from NVC. I present Hungary's experience with transitional justice and the rule of law as a shadow case to illustrate similar dynamics to those taking place in Poland.

The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the increasing role of transitional justice in world politics and on-going peace processes. The indisputable increase in such procedures has certainly encouraged a vigorous debate on their suitability to politically stabilise the countries, which have suffered a belligerent period. The theoretical framework of my work is based on the constructivist idea that international organizations have the capability to emancipate themselves from their origin of power, the states, and to define themselves as an independent actor in international politics, also helped by the intrinsic nature of bureaucracy. Thus, I develop a game theory model of the belief that behaviour of international and internal criminals is based on a principle of rational choice. I defend the concept of rational choice, which is affected by the environment where it is implemented. In particular, an environment, which is more aware of international and human rights, can positively affect peace talks. Uganda is the central case for various reasons. Above all else, Uganda is the first instance ever of a transitional justice – represented by the International Criminal Court – issuing warrants before the end of the conflict. Furthermore, Uganda has not been seriously influenced by world top powers and it lies in the Central Africa, where the most recent cases of transitional justice took place. As is evident from my studies, I see a clear change in Uganda situation widely thanks to the sensitizing role of the International Criminal Court. Unfortunately, at the moment of writing (April 2009), lasting peace seems still a long way off, but the situation has clearly improved since the involvement of the ICC in the conflict. Asiasanat:Transitional Justice Game Bayes ICC Uganda LRA Museveni Kony Acholi Ajwaki

The article provides a detailed and informative account of the transitional justice process in Albania and examines the logic behind the initiation of lustration process. Describing the accurate historical context of the country's communist past, the authors explain the factors that prevented the successful implementation of the post-communist transitional justice in Albania, such as its political culture, the impact of the communist regime, and most importantly, the lack of political will from Albanian political leadership to break away from its communist past. A pioneer in initiating transitional justice laws in the Balkans in the early nineties, Albania failed to successfully implement them, as the leadership saw the lustration process as a political means to crush the opposition and consolidate its power. The article explains that transitional justice process in Albania became highly politicized and was used by politicians for political gains, which ultimately led to loss of trust from general public failing to detach the Albanian political scene from its communist past.

Transitional societies must contend with a range of complex challenges as they seek to come to terms with and move beyond an immediate past saturated with mass murder, rape, torture, exploitation, disappearance, displacement, starvation, and all other manner of human suffering. Questions of justice figure prominently in these transitional moments, and they do so in a dual fashion that is at once backward and forward looking. Successor governments must think creatively about building institutions that bring justice to the past, while at the same time demonstrate a commitment that justice will form a bedrock of governance in the present and future. This is no easy task, and shortcuts, both in dealing with the past and in building a just future, often appear irresistible. In Martha Minow's words, justice at this juncture amounts to replacing "violence with words and terror with fairness," and steering a "path between too much memory and too much forgetting." The template of mechanisms available to undertake transitional justice are familiar to those who work in this field: prosecutions (domestic and international); truth and reconciliation commissions; lustration (the shaming and banning of perpetrators from public office); public access to police, military and other governmental records; public apology; public memorials; reburial of victims; compensation or reparation to victims and/or their families (in the form of money, land, or other resources); literary and historical writing; and blanket or individualized amnesty. In most cases, justice demands the deployment of a number of these tools, given that no one of them can adequately address and repair the injuries of the past nor chart a fully just future. Transitional justice will always be both incomplete and messy.

The article attempts to describe Taiwan's progress and a difficult position in practicing transitional justice during its democratic process. The first section reviews Taiwan's democratic progress and the impact on the implementation of transitional justice caused by a regime transition type. The second section describes Taiwan's authoritarian rule period, from February 28 Incident to the White Terror's political types of political cases. The third section analyses the reasons for Taiwan's unfinished transitional justice. The article claims that during Taiwan's political engineering of transitional justice, compensation for the victims was almost the only act of it and at the same time lacking legal or moral prosecution of the inflictors and the truth discovery. Taiwan has never had an opportunity to reflect on the damage caused by the system of the authoritarian rule, so that many inflictors or cooperators of the system have continued to serve in the democratized government in key positions, which has resulted in the prevailing phenomenon of impunity. Such a handling mode to compensate the victims, not willing to investigate theinflictors and seeking the historical truth, cannot solve the crime left by the authoritarian era alone, but it can also bring about a serious crisis of democratic governance in Taiwan

Many countries have attempted to transition to democracy following conflict or repression, but the basic meaning of transitional justice remains hotly contested. In this book, Colleen Murphy analyses transitional justice - showing how it is distinguished from retributive, corrective, and distributive justice - and outlines the ethical standards which societies attempting to democratize should follow. She argues that transitional justice involves the just pursuit of societal transformation. Such transformation requires political reconciliation, which in turn has a complex set of institutional and interpersonal requirements including the rule of law. She shows how societal transformation is also influenced by the moral claims of victims and the demands of perpetrators, and how justice processes can fail to be just by failing to foster this transformation or by not treating victims and perpetrators fairly. Her book will be accessible and enlightening for philosophers, political and social scientists, policy analysts, and legal and human rights scholars and activists

The tension between law and politics places transitional justice under cross-pressures. The impetus to hold Perpetrators legally accountable for atrocities and major rights violations has emerged in part from the expectation that subjecting political behavior to the apolitical judgment of law will exert a civilizing effect. As demands for accountability have risen, politics has played a central role at every step. The past decade has seen a flourishing of research in empirical political science on the relationship between law and politics in postconflict and postauthoritarian justice. This research has tried to explain the turn to individual legal accountability and the development of norms and institutions for accountability. Research has stressed the role of politics in shaping the implementation of trials and other modes of accountability. It has also examined the consequences of these modes of accountability. We address research on each of these topics. Adapted from the source document.