Around the world, local populations continue to demand justice. Where they have been successful in pushing for the adoption of accountability mechanisms, there have been reductions in violence. Over the years, many have vigorously debated the desirability and effectiveness of transitional justice (TJ) policies—indeed, some of these conversations have appeared here on Open Global Rights. We, as the authors of this article and longtime researchers on TJ, are committed to bringing new evidence to these debates as it becomes available. Here we present key findings of our most recent research, carried out with support from Global Affairs Canada.
The analysis presented here is based on the largest and most complete TJ database of policies around the world. It includes both microdata from surveys of victims and macrodata on the implementation of transitional justice policies around the world. The macro data contains information on five TJ mechanisms: amnesties, reparations policies, international and domestic prosecutions for human rights violations and conflict crimes, truth commissions, and vetting policies. The data are far-reaching globally, covering more than 190 countries, and historically, dating from 1970 to 2020. All the data, plus supporting documentation and a detailed FAQ page, are available online.
The systematic analysis of this data allows us to discuss global justice trends and the effectiveness of different kinds of justice mechanisms.
Populations in conflict zones around the world continue to express robust support for justice and accountability
New surveys conducted by our team members in Ethiopia, Ukraine, and Bosnia reinforce previous findings that people want transitional justice and see it as essential to sustainable peace. That said, opinions on specific mechanisms, the order in which they should be implemented, and the means of that implementation continue to diverge.
For example, a 2023 survey of more than 6,600 adults randomly selected from across Ethiopia provides insights into the risks and challenges of transitional justice from the perspective of survivors and affected communities. More than two-thirds of respondents indicated that trials, truth-seeking, and reparations are essential, and more than 90% said that a lack of trials, truth commissions, reparations, or other TJ mechanisms following recent political violence would be unacceptable. However, the near-unanimous support for these TJ mechanisms hides more divided views on their practical implementation.
The data show significant regional differences in people’s preferences for various criminal trial types. For example, 64% of respondents nationwide favor existing or new special domestic courts, while 37% prefer some form of hybrid or international court. But in Tigray, just 2% favored domestic courts, compared to 87% who would pick an international or hybrid tribunal. Individual exposure to violence in different time periods, varying levels of trust in governmental institutions, and regional dynamics all inform these perspectives. While there is robust support for justice, the survey results suggest that there may not be a single, universally accepted or effective approach to implementing it.
Transitional justice can improve human rights and prevent conflict
A global recession of democracy, widespread resumption of war, and destabilizing international geopolitical change have kept the supply of justice from keeping pace with continued strong demand. For example, as the international community turns its eye elsewhere, the government in Ethiopia appears to have lost motivation to adopt TJ mechanisms.
But even with recent downturns in the number of domestic human rights prosecutions, our latest data continues to show an enduring relationship between some forms of transitional justice and positive social outcomes. Human rights prosecutions, truth commissions, and reparations policies correlate with declines in violent repression in new or struggling democracies. In addition, these forms of transitional justice may encourage greater political engagement, including participation in local elections, advocacy, and political organizing. On the other hand, amnesties, which often protect state agents from criminal accountability, do not improve human rights protections or promote participatory democracy.
In general, our data suggest that fledgling democracies that engaged in extensive transitional justice over the last three decades are far less likely to revert to autocracy. These transitional justice mechanisms, however, do not solve all problems. For example, evidence strongly links human rights prosecutions with greater political polarization and restrictions on civil society organizations. One way to understand this is that transitional justice helps build a firewall against democratic collapse but not against democratic backsliding, the process by which liberal democracies erode into mere electoral democracies that lack firm protections for the rule of law. This is one of the key dilemmas of the contemporary moment.
Our new research also focuses on the impact of amnesties, prosecutions, reparations, and truth commissions on conflict recurrence in 99 countries affected by civil war. It shows a connection between criminal prosecutions for human rights violations and a lowered risk of conflict resuming. Our analysis demonstrates that, other things being equal, holding 10 trials could correspond to around a 25% lower probability of conflict resuming after 10 years of peace. Similarly, reparations policies seem to slightly increase the sustainability of peace, but the relationship is weaker. Our research on post-conflict cases also shows that neither amnesty laws nor truth commissions seem to lower the probability of conflict recurrence.
The takeaway
We find that countries that have successfully avoided democratic breakdown and recurrence of civil war have something in common: more robust mechanisms of transitional justice. This remains true as global security and rule of law have eroded over the last decade. The lesson for policymakers is that shoring up democracy and peace in an increasingly turbulent world requires doubling down on justice and accountability.
This blog reflects the joint work of the Transitional Justice Evaluation Tools (TJET) team. Team members include Geoff Dancy, Phuong Pham, Kathryn Sikkink, and Patrick Vinck.