Peace Processes & Transitional Justice

The PILPG Team

The Peace Processes & Transitional Justice program was led by Professor Darin Johnson, Isabela Karibjanian, Eian Katz, and Dr. Paul R. Williams.

Our Consortium Partners

The Peace Processes & Transition Justice program was a collaboration through the Global Initiative for Justice, Truth & Reconciliation. Pratima Narayan, Sarah Bradshaw, and Rachel Stern from the International Coalition of Sites of Conscience and Annah Moyo from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation were instrumental in the success of the project. This project also benefited greatly from the contributions of Predrag Miletic of the Humanitarian Law Center, Leonor Arteaga and Hannah Ahern of the Due Process of Law Foundation, and Indria Fernida of Asia Justice and Rights.

Project origins

Peace processes and their resulting peace agreements are a critical moment to ensure that the necessary entities and programs are in place to achieve a durable peace. Commenters who study peace and conflict generally agree that a durable peace largely relies on the ability of the peace agreement and transition from conflict to resolve the tensions that initiated the conflict, promote societal reconciliation, and reform government institutions, including the security sector. However, modern peace agreements often (1) include only broad, high-level provisions on transitional justice; (2) are drafted and negotiated by parties with only a high-level understanding of transitional justice sequencing, mechanisms, and best practices; and (3) do not include the voices of those most impacted by the conflict, including victims, marginalized groups, and women. 

Often, these peace agreements only pay lip service to the establishment of meaningful transitional justice mechanisms that provide access to justice and redress for conflict victims. Peace agreements may name transitional justice mechanisms to be established, such as a truth commission, but they often lack specificity in the timing, nature, and mandate of these transitional justice mechanisms. In addition, while there is general agreement that transitional justice mechanisms are expensive and long-term, peace agreements and their associated negotiations often do not establish and fund mechanisms to pay for the transitional justice processes required by the peace agreement.  Peace agreements also rarely establish sufficient – if any – oversight entities for the enforceability of provisions on transitional justice in the event parties to the agreement do not implement the agreement provisions. The lack of robust provisions for transitional justice drafted during peace processes creates a risk that the limited provisions will not be implemented, will only be implemented partially, or will be implemented in a disingenuous manner or manner that neither adequately addresses the needs of survivors nor remediates the harms endured by marginalized groups and women.      

Negotiating Justice: Peace Processes as Vehicles for Transitional Justice

This briefing paper drafted by PILPG’s Isabela Karibjanian and Eian Katz and edited by CSVR’s Annah Moyo-Kupeta and ICSC’s Pratima T. Narayan presents lessons and recommendations as to how peace processes can best nurture and promote transitional justice. It discusses strategies that stakeholders might adopt in order to motivate genuine discussion of transitional justice and break deadlocks, design robust and responsive programs, and boost compliance. It also provides specific guidance on the five core elements of transitional justice: accountability, truth-telling, reparations, institutional reform, and memorialization.