Transitional Justice And Rule Of Law Reconstruction

This short and accessible book is the first to focus exclusively on the inter-relation between transitional justice and rule of law reconstruction in post-conflict and post-authoritarian states. In so doing it provides a provocative reassessment of the various tangled relationships between the two fields, exploring the blind-spots, contradictions and opportunities for mutually-beneficial synergies in practice and scholarship between them. Though it is commonly assumed that transitional justice for past human rights abuses is inherently conducive to restoring the rule of law, differences in how both fields conceptualise the rule of law, the scope of transition and obligations to citizens have resulted in divergent approaches to transitional criminal trial, international criminal law, restorative justice and traditional justice mechanisms. Adopting a critical comparative approach that assesses the experiences of post-authoritarian and post-conflict polities in Latin America, Asia, Europe and Africa undergoing transitional justice and justice sector reform simultaneously, it argues that the potential benefits of transitional justice are exaggerated and urges policy-makers to rebalance the compromises inherent in transitional justice mechanisms against the foundational demands of rule of law reconstruction. This book will be of interest to scholars in the fields of transitional justice, rule of law, legal pluralism and peace-building concerned by the failure of transitional justice to leave a positive legacy to the justice system of the states where it operates. ‘This is a bold and nuanced scrutiny of the international system’s approach to transitional justice and the much vaunted rule of law project. Dr McAulifee should be congratulated for this well-researched book which should be a must read for not only scholars and researchers in transitional justice and peace and conflict studies, but also policy-makers in the international system.’ Dr. Hakeem O. Yusuf, Senior Lecturer, University of Strathclyde and author of Transitional Justice, Judicial Accountability and the Rule of Law.

At the century's end, societies all over the world are throwing off the yoke of authoritarian rule and beginning to build democracies. At any such time of radical change, the question arises: should a society punish its ancien regime or let bygones be bygones? Transitional Justice takes this question to a new level with an interdisciplinary approach that challenges the very terms of the contemporary debate. Ruti Teitel explores the recurring dilemma of how regimes should respond to evil rule, arguing against the prevailing view favoring punishment, yet contending that the law nevertheless plays a profound role in periods of radical change. Pursuing a comparative and historical approach, she presents a compelling analysis of constitutional, legislative, and administrative responses to injustice following political upheaval. She proposes a new normative conception of justice--one that is highly politicized--offering glimmerings of the rule of law that, in her view, have become symbols of liberal transition. Its challenge to the prevailing assumptions about transitional periods makes this timely and provocative book essential reading for policymakers and scholars of revolution and new democracies.

What if we could change the conditions in post-conflict/post-authoritarian countries to make transitional justice work better? This book argues that if the context in countries in need of transitional justice can be ameliorated before processes of transitional justice are established, they are more likely to meet with success. As the contributors reveal, this can be done in different ways. At the attitudinal level, changing the broader social ethos can improve the chances that societies will be more receptive to transitional justice. At the institutional level, the capacity of mechanisms and institutions can be strengthened to offer more support to transitional justice processes. Drawing on lessons learned in Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, The Gambia, Lebanon, Palestine, and Uganda, the book explores ways to better the conditions in post-conflict/post-authoritarian countries to improve the success of transitional justice.

Reconciliation - Ubuntu - Peace processes - Reparation - Restorative justice - Amnesty - Memory - Testimony - Transitional justice - Genocide - The international criminal court - Truth commissions - Traditional and customary law - Human rights - Rights and reconciliation - Economic transformation - National truth commissions - Online resources on transitional.

The idea of building a blueprint ‘rule of law’ through military intervention has seized the imagination of practitioners and theorists alike in the past decade of peacebuilding operations, and an emphasis on simultaneous judicial reconstruction and security sector reform has emerged as their central strategy. This work, in a fresh approach based on recent military operations in Iraq and beyond, challenges both the universality of the blueprint and the doctrinal assumption that institutional reform by military interveners builds peace and legitimacy. In a comprehensive review, the essential role of the community in developing its own relationship with law, while interveners refocus exclusively on restoring public security using their extraordinary powers under international humanitarian law, emerges as the only future for ‘rule of law operations.’

This volume presents the research analysis of a range of scholars and experts on post conflict peacebuilding and international law from a variety of perspectives and missions. The selected essays show that peacebuilding, like the concept of peacekeeping, is not specifically provided for in the UN Charter. They also demonstrate that the record of peacebuilding, like that of peacekeeping, is varied and while both concepts are intrinsically linked, neither lends itself to precise definition. The essays consider the historical approaches to peacebuilding such as the role played by the UN in the Congo in the early 1960s and the work of the United States and its allies in rebuilding Germany and Japan in the aftermath of World War II. Finally, essays consider the major challenge for contemporary peacebuilding operations to make international administrations accountable and to ensure the involvement of the international community in helping rebuild communities and prevent the resurgence of violence.

In United States Law and Policy on Transitional Justice: Principles, Politics, and Pragmatics, Zachary D. Kaufman explores the U.S. government's support for, or opposition to, certain transitional justice institutions. By first presenting an overview of possible responses to atrocities (such as war crimes tribunals) and then analyzing six historical case studies, Kaufman evaluates why and how the United States has pursued particular transitional justice options since World War II. This book challenges the "legalist" paradigm, which postulates that liberal states pursue war crimes tribunals because their decision-makers hold a principled commitment to the rule of law. Kaufman develops an alternative theory-"prudentialism"-which contends that any state (liberal or illiberal) may support bona fide war crimes tribunals. More generally, prudentialism proposes that states pursue transitional justice options, not out of strict adherence to certain principles, but as a result of a case-specific balancing of politics, pragmatics, and normative beliefs. Kaufman tests these two competing theories through the U.S. experience in six contexts: Germany and Japan after World War II, the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, the 1990-1991 Iraqi offenses against Kuwaitis, the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Kaufman demonstrates that political and pragmatic factors featured as or more prominently in U.S. transitional justice policy than did U.S. government officials' normative beliefs. Kaufman thus concludes that, at least for the United States, prudentialism is superior to legalism as an explanatory theory in transitional justice policymaking.