PAPER
Peace and Justice
Evaluating Competing Dynamics in Their Prioritization Within Peacebuilding Process
PHOTO CREDIT | UNICEF Ucraina on Flickr
DATE
May 2020
PROGRAM
Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding
AUTHOR
Esther Brito Ruiz
Political Risk and Intelligence Analyst at Horizon Intelligence
SHARE VIA:
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NextGen 5.0
This paper [1] aims to provide a critical analysis of the relationship between peace and justice in the context of conflict and post-conflict situations. By enquiring about the nature of peace and justice, and how these concepts relate and are prioritized in peace processes; we will argue that while justice remains key in peacebuilding efforts, it is not necessarily implicit as the ultimate or necessary goal of peace.
For this purpose, this investigation will introduce a reflection of the affirmation that peace is ultimately about the attainment of justice, questioning our considerations of peace and justice in themselves, and evaluating the paradoxes they may imply. Consequently, we will explore scenarios of how peace and justice may interact in peace processes, and the mayor debates around these interactions; including the prioritization of peace as the main objective and a precondition for the adequate exercise of justice, and the notion that justice is necessary for the establishment and maintenance of any notion of peace. This paper will then explore the problematic subjacent in these dynamics, and introduce new approaches to breach the issues mentioned above.
Having established this, conclusions will be drawn regarding the convergence and divergence points between peace and transitional justice; stating that while scenarios of peace can be achieved without justice, restorative and retributive justice processes must be implemented at a certain point so as to enable the consolidation of even the most minimalist interpretations of peace in the long term.
Understanding Justice and Peace
When evaluating the relationship between peace and justice, and whether one can truly affirm that peace is ultimately about the attainment of justice, we must question how both concepts relate to each other, and weather the attainment of either peace or justice is even effectively linear or conditional to each other. For this, we must first examine our implicit understandings of both justice and peace, and how paradoxes may arise from different interpretations of these concepts.
Transitional justice and peacebuilding both attempt to engage within conflict or post conflict societies [2]; seeking to reshape political, social and economic institutions within a conflict situation through an alteration of the previous order [3]. Nevertheless, there is a portrayal of both concepts as often opposing forces within scholarship on peacebuilding. In order to understand the fundamental precepts that have set both concepts as opposing forces, despite being deeply interlinked, it becomes necessary conduct a critical analysis of the concepts of peace and justice in themselves; as both terms are far from monolithic values [4].
Justice often stands as an inherently contested idea in itself [5]; with this being especially poignant in cases as complex as those derived or determined by violent conflict. Transitional justice is defined as the “full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses in order to ensure accountability, serve justice, achieve reconciliation, and possibly deter recurrence” [6]. These processes are both judicial and non-judicial, and include combinations of prosecutions, reparations, and institutional reform [7]; frequently aiming to respond to systematic or widespread human rights violations [8]. Such mechanisms do not function in a political vacuum, and are generally designed, executed and implemented in fragile conflict or transitional environments [9]. Strategies seeking to exercise transitional justice seek to simultaneously address past abuses, and prevent future ones [10]. Thus, transitional justice encompasses a broad framework of action that includes processes of different types of justice within its scope [11]; particularly principles of restorative, retributive, structural, procedural, and distributive justice [12].
Peace is, similarly, also a complex phenomenon with competing understandings. In these definitions, differences arise regarding the scope, goals, and durations of peace [13]. The most prominent interpretation of the iterations of the concept was pioneered by Johan Galtung, who defined the notions of positive and negative peace; offering a more nuanced vision of peacetime which has become paradigmatic [14]. Thus, positive peace and negative peace are situated at opposing ends of a spectrum regarding the presence of violence and persistence of the drivers of past and future conflict [15]. Scholars have further specified categories of peace, differentiating between just peace, stable peace and positive peace [16]. However, these notions generally fall within the spectrum Galtung proposes.
Within his conception, peace can, and often is, determined negatively [17]; generally being established as the immediate aim during complex political emergencies [18]. Negative peace is defined fundamentally as the absence of violence [19]. This minimalist definition of peace does not necessitate the addressing of issues of structural injustice, or require peace to be based on reconciliation for that matter [20]. Defined by the cessation of hostilities [21], negative peace can be imposed through repression or deterrence [22]. In turn, positive peace emerges as a less distinctly defined concept [23];characterized by the absence of structural violence [24], as well as the incorporation of elements such as reconciliation to ensure the long-term sustainability of peace [25].
In the same line, one can differentiate between “negative” acts of peacebuilding, which seek to prevent relapses into violence, and “positive” acts of peacebuilding, which would imply attempts to remove the underlying drivers of internal war, and aid national recovery, among other measures [26]. Enacting peace thus can encompass a wide range of policies and approaches [27], generally intended to strengthen institutions and prevent further instances of violence [28].
The Justice Versus Peace Debate
Justice and peace have a complex dynamic that may present in different levels of coherence or conflict. Tensions between the need for peace and the promotion of justice have defined some of the most salient peace processes of the last century, and led to the development of an extensive amount of scholarship on the matter [29]. The main question has centered on whether a tension exists between justice and peace, and if so how it should be addressed [30]. This has raised disputes regarding which should be prioritized when both cannot be achieved or pursued simultaneously [31].
Commonly addressed as the “peace versus justice” question [32], the debate encompasses a wide variation of approaches; including seeking peace in tandem with justice, securing peace first and justice following from it, or exercising justice as a precondition for the establishment of peace, among others [33]. This debate has been demarcated by a lack of consensus both in academia and policy [34]; which becomes an especially notable issue when considering that more than 40% of intra state conflicts ceased by peace agreements relapse into violence within five years [35].
Throughout this essay we will present examples that illustrate the complexity of the nature, demands, and effects of processes seeking peace and justice; yet it remains important to consider each example of conflict as is sui generis; meaning that no one approach can represent a single one-size fits all solution [36], as evidenced by key studies in the field, such as the Binningsbø, Elster & Gates dataset on post-conflict justice [37].
Generally, scholars tend to favor the prioritization of either peace or transitional justice; with either side understanding peace often as the immediate cessation of violence, followed by state-building which can include the exercise of justice, and transitional justice as a mechanism for recognition and reconciliation, key for any lasting social redress. Debates regarding lasting peace are often defined by a persistent tension between realpolitik, which seeks political settlement beyond considerations of ethical limitations, and the demands for accountability of those that have suffered injustice [38]. Those that advocate peace as the absolute imperative goal claim that the pursuit of justice and accountability in an already volatile conflict or post-conflict situation will compromise the viability of both peace and the exercise of justice [39]. In contrast, those that stand for the inclusion of transitional justice and the exercise of accountability as absolutely necessary components of the transition period argue that sustainable peace is impossible without the exercise of justice [40].
In most situations, particularly when considering longer-term effects, the issue that arises is not which aim, whether it be peace or justice, should be paramount; as both are needed for long term conflict resolution [41]; but how they should be translated into value calculations within current peace processes [42]. Thus, the question becomes a more nuanced evaluation of what kind of peace is sought, the steps necessary to achieve it, and how is the pursuit of peace and justice the best executed, combined and sequenced over time at each stage of the conflict’s resolution [43].
Prioritizing Peace: the End of Violence as the Foundation for Long Term Peace
Some academics and policymakers see post-conflict justice as something that may need to be compromised for the sake of attaining peace [44]. This derives from the view that combating impunity through transitional justice effectively serves to critically undermine peace negotiations and thus prolongs conflict [45]; destabilizing a fragile situation further [46]. This approach prioritizes the pursuit of peace by seeking foremost the end of violent conflict or the facilitation of processes of transition to democratic regimes. Furthermore, this position also tends to affirm that proponents of justice neglect to consider the political nuances of societies in transition [48]. In this line, Goldsmith and Krasner affirm that proponents of justice claim as unnegotiable that accountability outweighs any and all consequences possibly derived from it [49]. As a result, this position often advocates for settlements that may compromise accountability to achieve peace; generally understood as an absence of violence, as a foundation for future progress [50]. Settlements of this kind usually include blanket amnesties to shield particular leaders or groups from prosecution [51]. These are perceived as a “necessary evils” needed to start peace negotiation processes or establish ceasefires; being considered a “vital tool in the peacemaker’s toolkit” [52]. When this is so, peace may come at the cost of impunity, favoring immediate political objectives over the more delicate task of assigning responsibility [53].
The reasoning behind the critiques of the application of transitional justice in delicate scenarios of conflict is both judicial and political. Post-conflict societies may lack the institutional strength or economic means necessary to exercise fair and impartial justice processes, without heavily compromising other facets of peace building; or lead to situations of winners’ justice with little attention paid to actual reconciliation [54]. Furthermore, the exercise of justice processes during transition periods would require a clear consensus on the attribution and nature of the crimes seeking to be prosecuted [55], which may be heavily contested or fallible in bloody intra-state conflicts, especially in the short term [56]. This became clear in the case of Guatemala, where the trial that indicted General Ríos Montt, and convicted him of genocide and crimes against humanity [57], was abruptly annulled only two weeks later on procedural grounds [58]. Adding to this, transitional justice processes may also be internationally defined and imposed, and thus inappropriate for the cultural and political context they seek to be applied in [59].
Politically, peacemaking is often concerned with the reaction of political and military leaders who would stand prosecution, and thus may be disincentivized from discussing peace terms and refuse to lay down arms [60], or would demand impunity previous to any negotiations [61]. Examples of this can be found in the ICC’s cases in Uganda and Darfur, where the indictment against leaders involved in the peace settlement led them to create obstacles for the process [62]. Similarly, these potential clashes may also echo at the level of the public sphere and civil society; such as occurred in the cases of South Africa, where Afrikaner extremists have opposed the proposal for social redistribution in the country [63], and in El Salvador, where the leaders of the military rejected initial propositions to reinforce the rule of law and contain their authority in the wake of the peace agreement [64]. This could possibly lead to escalations of violence and the prolongation of ongoing conflict [65]. Thus, in the short term some just processes may still threaten stability, understood as negative peace, by possibly driving dissent and violent resistance from opposing groups and institutions [66].
For these reasons, many scholars doubt the practical value justice processes may have in establishing post-conflict peace and stability [67], and even addressing the issues they seek to find justice for [68]. Some policy makers and scholars in the field of peacebuilding view justice as one aspect within the many transformations needed to ultimately attaining peace, and that should be subservient to this purpose [69].
However, this line of argumentation can be heavily problematic in its application, and lead to difficulties in the maintenance of the peace it regards as paramount. The case of Afghanistan evidences how the policy of “peace first, justice later” can foster violence and embolden perpetrators; as this process ultimately empowered both local warlords, through the promotion of a state of impunity, and undermined the credibility of Afghanistan's newly elected democratic government [70]. While most scholars in this side of the debate advocate for a sequencing of peace and justice, which minimizes the risk of destabilization, while allowing for space to be constructed to exercise justice [71]; this still determines that peace should take precedence, and may not harbor the same results as a simultaneous approach at justice. In any case, a sequencing that excludes justice in the short term can also be seen as a rejection of disenfranchised groups claims for accountability, and undermine the viability of both short term and long term peace [72].
Thus, it becomes evident that conceptions of justice as derivative from peace strike a very delicate balance between stability and accountability. While prioritizing stability and power transitions may be key for the success of a peace process, it may also create a perceived culture of impunity and social sense of injustice within the state, contributing to the reemergence of conflict in a later term.
Prioritizing Justice: True Peace as a Condition Enabled by the Previous Exercise of Justice
While, as previously explored, the application of transitional justice in delicate conflict and post-conflict processes may entail a certain risk, it may also be fundamentally necessary to any practical construction of stable peace. According to Bassiouni “peace is not merely the absence of armed conflict; it is the restoration of justice, and the use of law to mediate and resolve intersocial and interpersonal discord” [73]. In this manner, any peace that does not include an exercise of justice would remain solely symbolic, and entail the failure of peacebuilding in the long term due to the non-addressment of the structural injustices that led to conflict [74].
A consideration of peace as more than the cessation of hostilities necessitates justice as a pre-established pillar. Justice and accountability are hold a key effect as deterrents of future violence [75], and reconciliation can be considered a foundational step towards building peace [76]. Thus, it stands that narrow conceptions of peace will fail to generate long-term and sustainable peacebuilding initiatives [77]. Bosnia- Herzegovina can be cited as a case study of this, marked by an absence of notable violence, but also by a lack of social reconciliation; as well as continued social tension and dissent in collective memory [78].
The simultaneous pursuit of both retributive and restorative forms of transitional justice affords post-conflict societies key elements necessary to foster sustainable peace, through a comprehensive combination of accountability, deterrence, reparations, historical memory, and measures for reconciliation [79]. Restorative justice initiatives like truth commissions redress, and public education projects effectively correlate with longer periods of sustained peace [80]; having demonstrated strong positive effects cases as sensitive as Rwanda and Serbia [81]. Particularly, in Rwanda these efforts were perceived as the “only way forward” [82].
However, the exercise of justice in the wake of conflict is in every way as much of a political imperative than it is a social necessity [83]. Accountability is fundamental to achieve the concession and cooperation of political leaders across the country’s social groups by addressing their political grievances [84], building public trust in governing authorities [85], avoiding the rise of extremist political positions [86], building a common account of truth [87], and preventing regressions into violence through revenge attacks [88]. Kritz argues that a lack of accountability empowers those that have carried out past atrocities, and may lead to relapses in violence; either through revenge attacks or due to the lack of deterrence tied to impunity [89]. Cases like Sierra Leone and Angola are demonstrative of how not addressing justice claims can compromise even short-term negative peace [90]; and the use of blanket amnesties fails to enhance the durability of peace agreements [91]. Impunity may serve, at best, to establish negative peace; but it will always fail to achieve reconciliation [92].
Precisely, ending impunity and blanket amnesties becomes an especially salient factor, as international actors may attempt to remove perpetrators from leadership position in domestic politics through transitional justice mechanisms [93]. Furthermore, there is evidence that despite the tensions prosecution may entail, pursuing justice serves to delegitimize and marginalize actors guilty of committing atrocities, and thus weakens their bargaining power, both domestically and internationally [94]. Generally, states are now tending to remove previously conceded blanket amnesties established during peace accords or political transitions [95]. This is demonstrated by the case of Sierra Leone, where the Special Court for Sierra Leone removed the amnesties conceded by the Lomé Peace Accord in 1999 [96], and similar procedures the case of many Latin American states; such as Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile [97]. This builds up to further contest claims that prioritizing peace is a “legitimate prerequisite in procuring a stable environment to administer justice”, as blanket amnesties are only truly utilizable to negotiate with certain guaranties that shield from future prosecution [98], and both state practice and international law are steadily building upon the illegality of amnesty and impunity concessions, especially for those at the highest levels of the chain of command [99]. This is reinforced through the actions of the ICC, to which amnesties represent an antithesis to its mission, and will rarely, if ever, concede to this practice, as “even in situations of extreme political necessity, to accept a blanket amnesty would be for the ICC to succumb to blackmail” [100].
Despite this, we must consider the inherent complications in effectively undertaking transitional justice processes in conflict situations. This is a contentious task that is rarely applied in tandem with the structural reform it requires; sometimes leading to unsatisfying results which may themselves compromise the continuation of peace.
Justice, especially when applied in the eve of conflict, is a “practice imbued with power”; yet it can be unsettlingly depoliticized when practiced, for either strategic or institutional purposes [101]. Transitional justice has both a pivotal and paradoxical role in transitions to peace; evidencing inherent tensions in seeking to simultaneously reform the legal system, and utilize the law as a basis upon which to build institutional transformation [102]. Leebaw argues that transitional justice institutions must both confront and condemn the illegitimacy of previous institutional roles in conflict, while simultaneously seeking to enforce their current position of power by minimizing threats to institutional viability or recognition [103]. While the goals that drive transitional justice and its institutions are generally considered complimentary, attention must be payed to the irreconcilable points at which they clash. This evidences certain fractures between the process of transitional justice and state institutions, bringing forth the question of unacknowledged trade-offs in the function of transitional justice institutions to advance reconciliation [104], and how these may impact both the exercise of justice and the maintenance of peace.
Thus, while transitional justice may stand as a requisite for long-term peace, it’s application still implies the possibility of destabilization deriving from inadequate implementation, internal tensions, and institutional limitations. It is necessary to utilize a combination of both restorative and retributive justice processes to confront impunity, enforce deterrence for future violence, and build legitimacy for state institutions and the rule of law. Ultimately, transitional justice remains a driver of not only long term positive peace, but also short term negative peace; and should factor into the sequencing of any peace process from its inception, at levels which do not impede the cessation of violence, but clearly signal that impunity will not be a negotiable parameter.
Problematizing the Relationship Between Peace and Justice
Both transitional justice and peacebuilding demonstrate notable points of convergence and divergence in terms of scope, application and objectives [105]. As we have seen, peace effectively represents more than just the absence of immediate violence, and justice stands as something beyond retribution alone [106].
Transitional justice is in need of more participatory and locally integrated approaches to favor long-term sustainability, fostering the power and agency of the local population, and bridging the fractures in application it has with central state institutions [107]. Current transitional justice often fails to properly engage and include the range of actors within post-conflict societies, and may even serve to institutionalize dominant and exclusionary discourses on conflict and social memory [108]. Nevertheless, while generalizations should be taken with certain reservations, the implementation of justice mechanisms has been demonstrated to positively correlate with both short and long-term peace; with a stronger impact than many context specific and case-related variables [109].
Similarly, the attainment of peace includes a series of internally contradicting dynamics, and is in need of a more comprehensive approach. There is a vast structural difference between measures seeking positive and negative peace, and the conglomeration of both has led peacebuilders to develop a tendency for the establishment of order as the ultimate goal, rather than a means to build a more inclusive and just peace in post-conflict [110]. Adding to this, the issue of impunity remains a contested means within peace negotiations, and has been demonstrated to lessen the sustainability of peace agreements; element which is key to any assessment of success of post-conflict peacebuilding [111]. Thus, peacebuilding still struggles with the tensions between realpolitik, which may settle immediate problems, and a more long term vision of sustainable peace, which inevitably must address delicate issues of reconciliation that can threaten stability [112].
The relationship between both processes is complex, non-linear, and case specific; and both dynamics also exhibit internal tensions. Thus, we can affirm that the “pursuit of justice does not categorically either undermine or promote peace”; it may do either or both, evidencing that their goals are not as contradictory as they often are interpreted to be [113].
Implications: Reflections on Peace and Justice in Post-Conflict
There may be no satisfactory or generalizable solution to the peace versus justice dilemma [114]. In fact, a more integrated understanding of the concepts of peace and justice may suggest that the dichotomous consideration of peace versus justice might be false within itself [115], and that the separation of both concepts is inviable in the long term. However, it remains true that peace and justice may have competing goals in the short-term, or necessitate conflicting measures, which further drive the debate between academics and policymakers on their application.
Having considered the intricacies of both of the concepts of peace and justice, their internal tensions, and the dynamics and values they exhibit in post-conflict peacebuilding; we argue that, while not often the fundamental aim of peace, a form of justice is required for the establishment and sustainability positive peace.
The consideration of peace as solely the absence of violence remains insufficient to maintain event itself in the long term, and a conception of peace framed in this manner is likely to eventually fall apart under straining social and political pressures. Justice and peace must be addressed in an integrated and holistic manner [116], so as to enable them to contribute and build upon each other [117], and foster long-term stability. Thus, the attainment of positive peace requires the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms, and the exercise of a form of justice or accountability [118]. To this extent, there can be no true attainment of positive peace without the previous exercise of justice, in whichever form the case may require, in order to promote lasting social reconciliation. This is exemplified by Bassiouni, who states that “in a world order based on the rule of law and not on the rule of might, the attainment of peace to end conflicts cannot be totally severed from the pursuit of justice whenever that may be required in the aftermath of violence” [119].
Thus, peace may ultimately not be about the attainment of justice, encompassing a variety of situations upon which different considerations of peace can be achieved without it; yet it must implement a form of justice, at different scales or moments through its consolidation, to truly have the capacity to hold the most basic requirements of nonviolence in the long term.
Conclusions
Justice and peace have a complex dynamic that may present in different levels of coherence or conflict. As a result, academic debate has centered on whether peace or justice should define the negotiation and maintenance of peacebuilding projects. Throughout this paper, we have argued that the relationship between peace and justice is complex, non-linear, and heavily case and context dependent.
We have argued that pursuing justice does not, by itself, definitely undercut or promote peace; and may in fact do either or both, defined by context and our conception of peace itself. While justice may come into direct contradiction certain aspects of peacebuilding, weather by omission or attribution, and can develop in a number of scenarios outside peace; it nevertheless has a key role in peacebuilding, and can very notably reinforce the durability of peace agreements. Justice serves to set the fundamental basis for social reconciliation, can be utilized to address the structural injustices that led to the conflict itself, and builds the legitimacy of state institutions and the rule of law; while also serving as a source of deterrence for future violence. However, its application also holds the potential to be strongly destabilizing, or inadequately implemented. In turn, peace, even solely as the cessation of violence, is the foundation of any peacebuilding process. Nevertheless, approaches that see peace as the foremost imperative goal, from which justice should then derive, strike delicate balances between short-term stability and long-term sustainability, and may instrumentally utilize impunity in a manner which often leads to echoes of internal or structural violence.
As a result of these considerations, we argue that while justice remains key in peacebuilding efforts, it is not necessarily implicit as the ultimate or necessary goal of peace. However, there is a positive correlation between the both processes; with justice often acting as an indicator of longer term peace when adequately incorporated into peacebuilding efforts, and being necessary for the maintenance of negative peace, and the achievement of positive peace, in the long term.
The question of how they should be prioritized, implemented, sequenced and integrated into said peace processes is likely to remain a contested source of debate; standing as determining factors in the successful design and implementation of conflict settlements.
Endnotes
1. The views of the author do not necessarily represent those of NextGen 5.0
2. Baker, Catherine, and Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik. “Mapping the Nexus of Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2016.
3. Ibid.
4. Albin, Cecilia. “Peace versus Justice-and Beyond.” The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, 2007.
5. Baker, Catherine, and Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik. “Mapping the Nexus of Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2016.
6. Jallow, Hassan B. Justice and the Rule of Law: a global perspective. Int'l Law. (2009): 43, 77.
7. OHCHR. “Rule of Law - Transitional Justice”. (2019). https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Pages/TransitionalJustice.aspx
8. ICTJ. “What is Transitional Justice?”. (2009). https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Global-Transitional-Justice-2009-English.pdf
9. UN. “United Nations Approach to Transitional Justice. United Nations. (2010). https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/TJ_Guidance_Note_March_2010FINAL.pdf
10. Sriram, Chandra Lekha. “Justice as Peace? Liberal Peacebuilding and Strategies of Transitional Justice.” Global Society 21, no. 4 (2007): 579–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820701562843.
11. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
12. Albin, Cecilia, and Druckman, Daniel. “Distributive Justice and the Durability of Peace Agreements.” Review of International Studies 37, no. 3. (2011).
13. Bassiouni, Cherif. “Searching for peace and achieving justice: The need for accountability.” International Crimes, 2017.
14. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
15. Pankhurst, Donna. “Issues of Justice and Reconciliation in Complex Political Emergencies: Conceptualising Reconciliation, Justice and Peace.” Third World Quarterly 20, no. 1 (1999): 239–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599914027.
16. Allan, Pierre. “Measuring International Ethics: A Moral Scale of War, Peace, Justice, and Global Care.” What Is a Just Peace?, 2006.
17. Galtung, Johan, and Charles Webel. “Peace and Conflict Studies.” Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, March 2007, 397–99. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203089163.pt5.
18. Pankhurst, Donna. “Issues of Justice and Reconciliation in Complex Political Emergencies: Conceptualising Reconciliation, Justice and Peace.” Third World Quarterly 20, no. 1 (1999): 239–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599914027.
19. Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (1969): 167–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301.
20. Gates, Scott, Helga Malmin Binningsbo, and Tove Grete Lie. “Post-Conflict Justice And Sustainable Peace.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4191.
21. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
22. Gates, Scott, Helga Malmin Binningsbo, and Tove Grete Lie. “Post-Conflict Justice And Sustainable Peace.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4191.
23. Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (1969): 167–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301.
24. Galtung, Johan, and Dietrich Fischer. “Positive and Negative Peace.” Johan Galtung SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice, 2013, 173–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32481-9_17.
25. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
26. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
27. Bassiouni, Cherif. “Searching for peace and achieving justice: The need for accountability.” International Crimes, 2017.
28. Baker, Catherine, and Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik. “Mapping the Nexus of Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding .” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2016.
29. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
30. Albin, Cecilia. “Peace versus Justice-and Beyond.” The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, 2007.
31. Ibid.
32. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
33. Albin, Cecilia. “Peace versus Justice-and Beyond.” The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, 2007.
34. Pankhurst, Donna. “Issues of Justice and Reconciliation in Complex Political Emergencies: Conceptualising Reconciliation, Justice and Peace.” Third World Quarterly 20, no. 1 (1999): 239–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599914027.
35. Druckman, Daniel, and Lynn Wagner. “Justice Matters: Peace Negotiations, Stable Agreements, and Durable Peace.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 63, no. 2 (2017): 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717739088.
36. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
37. Binningsbø, Helga Malmin. “The Civil War and Transitional Justice Dataset.” Background Narratives, 2005.
38. Bassiouni, Cherif. “Justice and Peace.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 2003, 191.
39. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
40. Hoogenboom, David A., and Stephanie Vieille. “Rebuilding Social Fabric in Failed States: Examining Transitional Justice in Bosnia.” Human Rights Review 11, no. 2 (2009): 183–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-009-0129-z.
41. Albin, Cecilia. “Peace versus Justice-and Beyond.” The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, 2007.
42. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
43. Albin, Cecilia. “Peace versus Justice-and Beyond.” The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, 2007.
44. Gates, Scott, Helga Malmin Binningsbo, and Tove Grete Lie. “Post-Conflict Justice And Sustainable Peace.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4191.
45. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
46. Sriram, Chandra Lekha. “Justice as Peace? Liberal Peacebuilding and Strategies of Transitional Justice.” Global Society 21, no. 4 (2007): 579–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820701562843.
47. Bassiouni, Cherif. “Searching for peace and achieving justice: The need for accountability.” International Crimes, 2017.
48. Sriram, Chandra Lekha. “Justice as Peace? Liberal Peacebuilding and Strategies of Transitional Justice.” Global Society 21, no. 4 (2007): 579–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820701562843.
49. Goldsmith, Jack, and Stephen D. Krasner. “The Limits of Idealism.” The Globalization of International Law, May 2017, 265–82. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315086392-19.
50. Gates, Scott, Helga Malmin Binningsbo, and Tove Grete Lie. “Post-Conflict Justice And Sustainable Peace.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4191.
51. Mallinder, Louise, and Kieran Mcevoy. “Rethinking Amnesties: Atrocity, Accountability and Impunity in Post-Conflict Societies.” Contemporary Social Science 6, no. 1 (2011): 107–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450144.2010.534496.
52. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
53. Bassiouni, Cherif. “Justice and Peace.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 2003, 191.
54. Gates, Scott, Helga Malmin Binningsbo, and Tove Grete Lie. “Post-Conflict Justice And Sustainable Peace.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4191.
55. Goldsmith, Jack, and Stephen D. Krasner. “The Limits of Idealism.” The Globalization of International Law, May 2017, 265–82. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315086392-19.
56. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
57. Azpuru Ligia Blanco, Dinorah, Ricardo Córdova Macías, Nayelly Loya Marín, Carlos Ramos, and Adrián Zapata. “Construyendo La Democracia En Sociedades Posconflicto: Guatemala y El Salvador, Un Enfoque Comparado.” CIID, 2007.
58. Laplante, Lisa J. “Memory Battles: Guatemala's Public Debates and the Genocide Trial of Jose Efrain Rios Montt. Quinnipiac L. Rev., 32, (2013): 621.
59. Sriram, Chandra Lekha. “Justice as Peace? Liberal Peacebuilding and Strategies of Transitional Justice.” Global Society 21, no. 4 (2007): 579–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820701562843.
60. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
61. Baker, Catherine, and Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik. “Mapping the Nexus of Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding .” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2016.
62. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
63. Chothia, Farouk. “The Groups Playing on the Fears of a 'White Genocide.’” Accessed 2018. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-45336840.
64. Studemeister, Margarita. “El Salvador. Implementation of the Peace Accords”. United States Institute of Peace. (2001). https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/pwks38.pdf
65. Bratt, Duane. “Peace over Justice: Developing a Framework for UN Peacekeeping Operations in Internal Conflicts.” Global Governance, 1999.
66. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
67. Gates, Scott, Helga Malmin Binningsbo, and Tove Grete Lie. “Post-Conflict Justice And Sustainable Peace.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4191.
68. Goldsmith, Jack, and Stephen D. Krasner. “The Limits of Idealism.” The Globalization of International Law, May 2017, 265–82. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315086392-19.
69. (Baker, Catherine, and Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik. “Mapping the Nexus of Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding .” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2016.
70. Nadery, Ahmad Nader (2007). Peace or justice? Transitional justice in Afghanistan.
71. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
72. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
73. Bassiouni, Cherif. “Justice and Peace.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 2003, 191.
74. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
75. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
76. Druckman, Daniel, and Lynn Wagner. “Justice Matters: Peace Negotiations, Stable Agreements, and Durable Peace.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 63, no. 2 (2017): 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717739088.
77. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
78. Hoogenboom, David A., and Stephanie Vieille. “Rebuilding Social Fabric in Failed States: Examining Transitional Justice in Bosnia.” Human Rights Review 11, no. 2 (2009): 183–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-009-0129-z.
79. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
80. Gates, Scott, Helga Malmin Binningsbo, and Tove Grete Lie. “Post-Conflict Justice And Sustainable Peace.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4191.
81. Baker, Catherine, and Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik. “Mapping the Nexus of Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding .” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2016.
82. Goldstein-Bolocan, Maya. “Rwandan gacaca: an experiment in transitional justice”. J. Disp. Resol. (2004): 355.
83. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
84. Ibid.
85. Gates, Scott, Helga Malmin Binningsbo, and Tove Grete Lie. “Post-Conflict Justice And Sustainable Peace.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4191.
86. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
87. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
88. Gates, Scott, Helga Malmin Binningsbo, and Tove Grete Lie. “Post-Conflict Justice And Sustainable Peace.” Policy Research Working Papers, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4191.
89. Kritz, Neil J. “Coming to Terms with Atrocities: A Review of Accountability Mechanisms for Mass Violations of Human Rights.” Law and Contemporary Problems 59, no. 4 (1996): 127. https://doi.org/10.2307/1192195.
90. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
91. Albin, Cecilia, and Druckman, Daniel. “Distributive Justice and the Durability of Peace Agreements.” Review of International Studies 37, no. 3. (2011).
92. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
93. Baker, Catherine, and Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik. “Mapping the Nexus of Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding .” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2016.
94. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
95. Ibid.
96. Tejan-Cole, Abdul. “Painful peace: Amnesty under the Lome Peace Agreement in Sierra Leone”. Law, Democracy & Development, 3(2), (1999): 239-252.
97. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
98. Ibid.
99. Robinson, D. “Serving the Interests of Justice: Amnesties, Truth Commissions and the International Criminal Court.” European Journal of International Law 14, no. 3 (January 2003): 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/14.3.481.
100. Robinson, D. “Serving the Interests of Justice: Amnesties, Truth Commissions and the International Criminal Court.” European Journal of International Law 14, no. 3 (January 2003): 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/14.3.481.
101. Nagy, Rosemary .“Transitional Justice as Global Project : Critical Reflections.” Law in Transition : Human Rights, Development and Transitional Justice, n.d. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201841.ch-012.
102. Bell, Christine, Colm Campbell, and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. “Justice Discourses in Transition.” Social & Legal Studies 13, no. 3 (2004).
103. Leebaw, Bronwyn Anne. “The Irreconcilable Goals of Transitional Justice.” Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 1 (2008): 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2008.0014.
104. Ibid.
105. Baker, Catherine, and Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik. “Mapping the Nexus of Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2016.
106. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
107. Lundy, Patricia, and Mark Mcgovern. “Whose Justice? Rethinking Transitional Justice from the Bottom Up.” Journal of Law and Society 35, no. 2 (2008): 265–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00438.x
108. Leebaw, Bronwyn Anne. “The Irreconcilable Goals of Transitional Justice.” Human Rights Quarterly 30, no. 1 (2008): 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2008.0014.
109. Druckman, Daniel, and Lynn Wagner. “Justice Matters: Peace Negotiations, Stable Agreements, and Durable Peace.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 63, no. 2 (2017): 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717739088.
110. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
111. Lundy, Patricia, and Mark Mcgovern. “Whose Justice? Rethinking Transitional Justice from the Bottom Up.” Journal of Law and Society 35, no. 2 (2008): 265–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00438.x
112. Bassiouni, Cherif. “Justice and Peace.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 2003, 191.
113. Albin, Cecilia. “Peace versus Justice-and Beyond.” The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, 2007.
114. Sriram, Chandra Lekha. “Justice as Peace? Liberal Peacebuilding and Strategies of Transitional Justice.” Global Society 21, no. 4 (2007): 579–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600820701562843.
115. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
116. Mani, Rama. “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict.” Development 48, no. 3 (2005): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.development.1100165.
117. Baker, Catherine, and Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik. “Mapping the Nexus of Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2016.
118. Mansour, Katerina; Riches, Laura & de Soto, Alvaro. “Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy”. (2017).
119. Bassiouni, Cherif. “Searching for peace and achieving justice: The need for accountability.” International Crimes, 2017.