Truth Commissions: The Usefulness of Truth-telling

1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-158
Author(s):  
Kirsty Sangster
2020 ◽  
pp. 397-446
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack

The penultimate chapter offers a discussion of the prospects for a genuine transitional justice process in Syria. Chapter 10 begins with a short history of the development of the archetypal tools within the transitional justice toolkit—criminal accountability, truth commissions, reparations, amnesties, lustration, institutional reform, and guarantees of nonrecurrence—and the way in which transitional justice efforts have become increasingly internationalized. This enhanced involvement of the international community in promoting transitional justice reflects the belief—premised on historical case studies and emerging empirical research—that societies in transition must address the crimes of the past in some capacity or risk their repetition. The chapter surveys the most recent research testing these claims, which has benefited from the creation of a number of new databases gleaned from states in transition. The chapter then describes ways in which the international community has tried to prepare for a future transitional justice process in Syria even in the absence of a political transition, including by training Syrian advocates, surveying Syrian communities to understand their knowledge of transitional justice and preferences for Syria, promoting psychosocial rehabilitation and solidarity among victims, and preparing for truth-telling exercises and institutional reform measures. The conclusion suggests ways in which the international community could still promote some form of transitional justice as part of the reconstruction process, even if Assad remains in power, which seems increasingly likely.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-107
Author(s):  
G. Nelaeva ◽  
N. Sidorova

The concept of transitional justice has been associated with the periods of political change when a country emerges from a war or turmoil and attempts to address the wrongdoings of the past. Among various instruments of transitional justice, truth commissions stand out as an example of a non-judicial form of addressing the crimes of the past. While their setup and operation can be criticized on different grounds, including excessive politization of hearings and the virtual impossibility of meaningfully assessing their impact, it has been widely acknowledged in the literature that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa can be regarded as a success story due to its relatively strong mandate and widespread coverage and resonance it had in South African society. We would like to compare this commission from the 1990s with a more recent example, the Brazilian National Truth Commission, so as to be able to address the question of incorporation of gendered aspects in transitional justice (including examination of sexual violence cases, representation of women in truth-telling bodies, etc.), since gender often remains an overlooked and silenced aspect in such initiatives. Gendered narratives of transitional justice often do not fit into the wider narratives of post-war reconciliation. A more general question addressed in this research is whether the lack of formal procedure in truth commissions facilitates or hinders examination of sexual crimes in transitional settings.


2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Apori Nkansah

Intense debate surrounds truth commissions as to their mission, perceived roles and outcomes. This paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of truth commissions in post-conflict settings. It examines the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) for Sierra Leone, the first truth commission to be engaged concurrently with a retributive mechanism, the Special Court for Sierra Leone for transitional justice. The study finds that the TRC provided an opening for conversation in Sierra Leonean communities to search for the meanings of truth about the conflict. In this way the communities simultaneously created an understanding of the situation and set reconciliation directions and commitment from the process of creative conversation.  This notwithstanding, the TRC did not have the needed public cooperation because the people were not sure the war was over and feared that their assailants could harm them if they disclosed the truth to the TRC. The presence of the Special Court also created tensions and fears rendering the transitional environment unfriendly to the reconciliation and truth telling endeavors of the TRC. The study has implications for future truth commissions in that the timing for post-conflict reconciliation endeavors should take into consideration the state of the peace equilibrium of the societies involved. It should also be packaged for harmonious existence in a given transitional contexts, particularly where it will coexist with a retributive mechanism.


Author(s):  
Cynthia M. Horne

This chapter examines the conditions under which lustration and truth commissions affected social trust, separately considering trust in social institutions and interpersonal trust. This chapter shows that measures to improve social trust might have unintended, negative consequences. More compulsory lustration programs were associated with less trust in unions and the church at both the individual and aggregate levels. There is some evidence to support the contentions of critics that lustration might adversely affect social institutions via blowback from truth telling and public disclosures about previous regime complicity. With respect to interpersonal trust, while late file access procedures and personal disclosures could affect interpersonal trust in the future, the lustration of public office holders has not undermined interpersonal trust as feared. The findings from this chapter reconfirmed the theoretical argument specified in Chapter 1 regarding the expected differential impact of lustration measures on particularized and generalized social trust.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9s2 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Elias O. Opongo

Post-conflict reconstruction has emerged as one the major issues of concern in Africa in the last three decades. Since the end of the Cold War following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, many African countries embraced multiparty systems that expanded democratic spaces. With this came the claim to justice and consciousness on the need to reconstruct a new vision of the nation, a vision that is based on social cohesion. This led to calls for democratisation in a number of African countries as well as in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and, in particular, former Soviet Union countries. In Africa, the approach taken by different countries varied from elaborate transitional justice processes that involved truth commissions to national dialogue processes that called for political compromise without putting into place any formal transitional justice process. The articles in this supplementary issue on transitional justice discourse in post-conflict societies in Africa draw attention to diverse contextual issues on post-conflict reconstruction in the continent. These articles bring together divergent discourses, experiences, theorisations, and interpretations of transitional processes while calling for a new way of assessing truth-telling processes within the purview of legal frameworks, gender and cultural sensitivities, peace sustainability, and conflict resolution strategies in Africa. The articles open up debate on the extent to which transitional justice processes contribute to peace and sustainability in Africa, and what could be done to improve this important post-conflict reconstruction initiative.


Author(s):  
Katherine van Wormer

This article defines restorative justice and describes the models most relevant to social work. These include victim–offender conferencing (sometimes incorrectly referred to as mediation), family group conferencing, healing circles, and community reparations. Restorative justice is an umbrella term for a victim-oriented method of righting a wrong, promoting healing following a conflict, including war, and/or providing a safety in the aftermath of violence (for example, child abuse). Such restorative strategies have their roots in the rituals of indigenous populations and modern-day religious practices, as stated by restorative justice pioneer, Howard Zehr. Restorative justice, as defined by the Social Work Dictionary is “a non-adversarial approach usually monitored by a trained professional who seeks to offer justice to the individual victim, the offender, and the community, all of whom have been harmed by a crime or other form of wrongdoing.” This emerging model for resolving conflict and/or righting a wrong focuses on repairing the harm done by an offense by involving the victim, the offender, and the community. This article identifies resources on restorative justice theories and strategies with special relevance to social workers and to mental health professionals, as well as school and correctional counselors. At the micro level, restorative justice is played out as conferencing between victims and offenders—for example, by way of family group conferences and healing circles. At the macro or societal level, restorative justice takes the form of reparations or truth commissions—to compensate for the harm that has been done, for example, when mass persecutions of people have taken place. The magnitude of the situations covered under the rubric of restorative justice ranges from interpersonal violence to school bullying to mass kidnappings to full-scale terrorism and warfare. Restorative justice refers not only to a number of strategies for resolving conflicts peacefully but also to a political campaign of sorts to advocate for the rights of victims and for compassionate treatment of offenders. Instead of incarceration, for example, the option of community service coupled with substance abuse treatment might be favored. From the offender’s standpoint, accountability and truth-telling are stressed, as the offender typically offers to make amends for the harm that was done. From the victim’s standpoint, a key theme is empowerment, through receiving an apology from the wrongdoer and receiving the support of caring participants.


Author(s):  
Robinson Isabel ◽  
Varney Howard

Principle 12 deals with the advisory functions of truth commissions. The advisory function of truth commissions is one of the most concrete ways that they can achieve their goals of helping rebuild society and prevent further violence. Such function is an essential dimension of the forward-looking dimension of truth-telling and truth-seeking processes. In particular, it enables truth commissions to pay attention to the experiences and role of women in transitioning societies, as well as to intersect with others measures aimed at combating impunity, including reparations and criminal prosecutions. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 12 before discussing its theoretical framework and how the recommendations of truth commissions have been implemented. It also highlights some of the key challenges involved in the implementation of a commission’s recommendations, noting that the failure to implement recommendations is often the result of a lack of political will.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document