Transitional justice and democratic change: Key concepts

• Author: Elena Andreevska
• Position: PhD, SEE-University, Tetovo, Republic of Macedonia
• Pages: 54-64

LESIJ NO. XX, VOL. 1/2013

TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE AND DEMOCRATIC CHANGE: KEY

CONCEPTS

Elena ANDREEVSKA

Abstract

This Article proposes a genealogy of transitional justice and focuses on transitional justice as one of

the key steps in peace building that needs to be taken to secure a stable democratic future. Transitional

justice is a response to systematic or widespread violations of human rights. It seeks recognition for victims

and promotion of possibilities for peace, reconciliation and democracy. The paper focuses on key concepts

of transitional justice before addressing its traditional components: justice, reparation, truth and

institutional reform. This Article meeting point on the transitional process in a society which has

experienced a violent conflict and needs adequate mechanisms to deal with the legacies of the past in order

to prevent future violence and cover the way for reconciliation and democratic consolidation. It provides

key stakeholders with an overview of transitional justice and its different components, while examining key

challenges faced by those working in this area. The present paper concludes with some remarks that

challenge the traditional concept of transitional justice and its processes in order to initiate important

debate on where future work in this field is needed.

Keywords: Transitional justice, democracy, human rights, institutional reforms, democratic

consolidation.

Introduction

The presumption in much of what has been said about transitional justice is that we can

speak in general terms about these real -world practices. Some commentators have spoken

explicitly of one common theory of transitional justice.

1 These generalizations concern the

dilemmas of dealing with massive human rights abuses and ways to assess and evaluate the

practices utilized when confronting such legacies of violence and injustice. Nonetheless, in a

diverse world one risk of constructing a general theory is that it can lack sensitivity to different

and nuanced circumstances. In particular, it is problematic to utilize a common normative

framework that presupposesă theă liberală democratică natureă ofă ană incomingă regime,ă oră law’să

ability to generally further such values. While some case studies of transitional justice have

argued that law can also serve to restrict democratization,2 and while objectives such. As

reconciliation,ă peace,ă andă victims’ă healingă areă nowă increasinglyă examinedă ină theă generală

literature3, the fac t remains that the scholarship is dominated by the co nception that transitional

 PhD, SEE-University, Tetovo, Republic of Macedonia (email: e.andreevska@seeu.edu.mk).

1 See Riti G. Teitel, Transitional Justice (Oxford University Press, 2000): 213.

2 SeeăBrianăGrodsky,ă“Justiceă withoutăTransition:TruthăCommissionsăinătheă ContextăofăRepres siveăRule”,8ă

HUM. RTS. L. REV, (2008): 218.

3 See, Ibid., Supra 1; Carlos Nino, Radical Evil on Trial (Yale University Press,1996); Neil J Krotz:

Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes: Country Studies (US

Institute of Peace Press,1995); and James McAdams: Transitional Justice and the Rule of Law in New

Democracies (University of Notre Dame Press, 1997).