The Language of Transitional Justice

In the second half of the 20th century, instances of horrific mass violence, such as state-sponsored genocides in Guatemala and Rwanda and civil wars in the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone, left survivors and the world community with the responsibility of responding to the “world’s worst crimes” while also rebuilding shattered lives and societies. Dated to the Nuremberg trials after World War II, transitional justice comprises legal and quasi-legal mechanisms of delivering justice after significant sociopolitical upheaval and violence, such as a period of dictatorship or political repression, civil or international war, or mass violence from another source ( Minow 1998 ; Teitel 2000 ). A burgeoning set of practitioners, notably lawyers and NGO workers in postconflict settings, are prime movers of what is sometimes called the transitional justice industry. Yet both parts of the phrase have come in for scrutiny. The word “transition” implies an expectation of movement or change, such as transition toward democracy or transition away from violence, each of which have proven difficult to apprehend and achieve. As for “justice,” definitions range from accountability and punishment in the familiar discourse of liberal legalism to other incarnations, such as public apology, reparations, and reconciliatory rituals. Rather than enter the controversy over definitions, this chapter takes an expansive view of what counts as transitional justice, which allows for exploration of scholarship about a wide range of processes.