An initial theme in discussions was that TJ today is in a state of transition, evolving far beyond its historic origins in democratic transitions. Participants recalled the initial emergence of TJ as a ‘bottom-up’, Civil Society-driven initiative. The historic role of victims, survivors and civil society organisations, such as the ‘Mothers of Plaza de Mayo’ in Argentina, were foundational to the ‘origin story’ of TJ. The TJ movement was then developed and consolidated in the 1980s and 1990s via the emergence of trials and truth-seeking initiatives following regime changes in Latin America and Eastern Europe, and mass human rights violations in the Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere. By the early 21st century, these practices led to normative consolidation and a system of UN-endorsed best practices for TJ, including the creation of an International Criminal Court in The Hague.
A senior independent expert affiliated to a multilateral organisation described how best practice for TJ included five pillars: Truth, Justice, Reparation, Prevention and Memorialisation. These pillars engage with reform on societal, institutional, and individual levels, while holistically combining judicial and non-judicial measures where possible. These complementary pillars provided a foundation for many contemporary TJ programmes.
Although participants referred to numerous TJ ‘success stories’, conversations also emphasised that, over the past decade, a rapidly changing international order had challenged and eroded TJ’s relevance. The legitimacy of associated norms emerged as a critical requirement for TJ, including multilateralism, democracy, international law, and development assistance programmes, all of which were now under threat. After the Cold War, democracy spread to a number of formerly authoritarian and military regimes, enshrining democratic norms as almost universal; the United States was seen in some quarters as ‘a shining city on the hill’. However, ‘cracks’ were exposed in this image over the perceived hypocrisy of Western democracies, alongside the self-interested and short-sighted nature of interventions in the Global South. As existing norms crumbled, countries who once led the push for TJ now disregarded memory cultures and human rights standards. One academic described the recent degradation of TJ as leading towards an ‘age of impunity’; justice in the future may therefore look like ‘different kinds of silence’.
This narrative was echoed by several participants, who noted that many countries had lost their trust in multilateralism and international law, despite an unprecedented docket at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). For example, a TJ practitioner noted that ‘the feeling [in Syria] is that it would be good if the United Nations could just give money and go away’, leaving the implementation of TJ to those more trusted to prioritise local needs over geopolitical agendas. Others noted that financial assistance mechanisms were also in retreat, as former international donors to the TJ ‘project’ elevated domestic needs and securitisation over supporting justice in other contexts.
This erosion of norms has led TJ today to move away from any illusion of a ‘perfect’ justice. Participants highlighted that many people now misconstrue the term ‘transitional justice’, because they view it as lacking meaningful local impact, and chiefly associate it with providing perpetrators with amnesty. This pushback against TJ has exposed a fundamental question: is ‘transitional justice’ as a term still valid today?
A familiar criticism of international TJ is that it applies a one-size-fits-all model by imposing a Global North-driven agenda on mainly Global South contexts, ignoring cultural specificity. Discussions frequently referred to TJ as a loaded concept, often principally associated with criminal accountability, leading to some current practitioners avoiding utilising the term. For example, a senior mediator noted that Colombia describes its justice processes as a ‘victim-centred approach’ (rather than as TJ) to reframe its work in language that reflects local needs; a European justice practitioner noted that this reframing has also occurred in Ukraine, because the ‘transitional’ component of TJ is compromised by the ongoing conflict. Participants shared the view that alternate language such as ‘post-conflict justice’ or ‘contending with legacies of violence’ were at times more appreciated by victims and survivors, because TJ can be perceived as a politicised, ‘Western obsession’.
Nonetheless, participants also noted that victims and survivors of many conflicts still call for elements of TJ, such as reparations, criminal trials, and other forms of accountability, acknowledging that justice has an important inter-generational impact. In fact, a senior academic suggested that peace may not be truly sustainable without justice. TJ has also expanded into new spaces with potential for delivering justice to under-represented groups. Several participants discussed the growing push to interact with faith-based communities, explore gendered perspectives, and to study the effects of conflict on LGBTQ+ people. Participants also noted that TJ interrelates with other international projects like development and economic recovery, because those sectors have helped fill the funding gap left behind by shifts in donor priorities. Although TJ has perhaps ‘expanded its ambitions too far’, in the words of one academic expert, another perspective is that it has ‘resiliently found ways to proceed’ in an increasingly contested environment. Today’s TJ is therefore an imperfect field, but still a meaningful and necessary one.