Abstract
Despite the differences between the cases—European and Asian; international and hybrid; adversarial and inquisitorial—many similarities exist between the expectation gaps for both institutions. One of the most prominent similarities was the construction of expectations as either appropriate or inappropriate in relation to any one of the institutions, a sentiment expressed by multiple key informants. But this is an unsatisfactory binary reduction of complex justice issues. Instead, we could turn this frame on its head and ask whether we have the correct justice mechanism to respond to the expectations. Single institutions exhibit many limitations in their capacity to address the diverse expectations for justice in post-conflict societies. The data from this study suggest that while some institutions can satisfy some expectations, approaches that rely on one manifestation of justice will likely fail to provide the justice that stakeholders expect.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aukerman, MJ 2002, ‘Extraordinary evil, ordinary crime: A framework for understanding transitional justice’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 15, pp. 39–98.
Braithwaite, J and Nickson, R 2012, ‘Timing truth, reconciliation, and justice after war’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 443–446.
Chibnall, S 1977, Law and order news: An analysis of crime reporting in the British Press, Tavistock Publications, London.
Drumbl, MA 2002, ‘Restorative justice and collective responsibility: Lessons for and from the Rwandan genocide’, Contemporary Justice Review, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5–22.
Drumbl, MA 2003, ‘Toward a criminology of international crime’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 263–281.
Dzihana, A and Volcic, Z (eds) 2011, Media and national ideologies: Analysis of reporting on war crime trials in the former Yugoslavia, Media Centar Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Eckstein, H 1975, ‘Case studies and theory in political science’ in Greenstein, F and Polsby, N (eds), Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 7, Addison-Wesley, Boston.
Fletcher, LE and Weinstein, HM 2002, ‘Violence and social repair: Rethinking the contribution of justice to reconciliation’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 573–639.
Haider, H 2009, ‘(Re)Imagining coexistence: Striving for sustainable return, reintegration and reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 91–113.
Hancock, V 2008, ‘“No self” at trial: How to reconcile punishing the Khmer Rouge for crimes against humanity with Cambodian Buddhist principles’, Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, p. 87.
Ivkovic, SK 2001, ‘Justice by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, Stanford Journal of International Law, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 255–265.
McEvoy, K 2007, ‘Beyond legalism: Towards a thicker understanding of transitional justice’, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 411–440.
McEvoy, K 2008, ‘Letting go of legalism: Developing a ‘thicker understanding of transitional justice’ in McEvoy, K and McGregor, L (eds), Transitional justice from below: Grassroots activism and the struggle for change, Hart Publishing, Portland, Oregon.
Marks, SP 1994, ‘Forgetting “the policies and practices of the past”: Impunity in Cambodia’, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 17–44.
Nettlefield, LJ 2010, ‘From the battlefield to the barracks: The ICTY and the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina’, International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 87–109.
Open Society Justice Initiative 2012, The future of cases 003/004 at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Open Society Justice Initiative, New York.
Ramji-Nogales, J 2010, ‘Designing bespoke transitional justice: A pluralist process approach’, Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–72.
Simons, M 2009, ‘International criminal tribunals and the media’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 83–88.
Theissen, G 2004, Supporting justice, co-existence and reconciliation after armed conflict: Strategies for dealing with the past, Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management, Berlin.
Zoglin, K 2005, ‘The future of war crimes prosecutions in the former Yugoslavia: Accountability or junk justice?’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 41–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nickson, R., Neikirk, A. (2018). A Trying Paradigm. In: Managing Transitional Justice. Palgrave Studies in Compromise after Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77782-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77782-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77781-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77782-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)