Reducing the Expectation Gap

Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Compromise after Conflict book series (PSCAC)

Abstract

Current approaches to managing expectations are ad hoc, reactive, and top-down. While this is appropriate for certain expectations, it is inappropriate for others. This chapter outlines a normative theory for the management of expectations in transitional justice. It suggests a three-step process to address the expectation problem. The first step builds upon and improves current expectation management strategies. In order to manage expectations top-down it is necessary to identify expectations, what constitutes the gap, and the institutional problem that has contributed to the gap. Step two is to develop shared aims among stakeholders from the earliest stages when seeking justice after conflict. The third and final step recommends that we conceive of justice after conflict more broadly, deeply and longer. Broadening justice is about a more holistic and multidimensional understanding of justice. Deeper justice is a more inclusive and empowering justice. Finally, longer justice responds to the expectations that are disappointed because justice initiatives attempt to begin and end their efforts in usually short time frames. These will require more proactive efforts, as opposed to the reactive approach that currently dominates.

References

  1. Afri-Forum and Another vs. Malema and others, no. 20968/2010 S.A. Eq. Ct., [2011] ZAEQC 2 [11–12].Google Scholar
  2. Akhavan, P 1998, ‘Justice in The Hague, peace in the former Yugoslavia? A commentary on the United Nations war crimes tribunal’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 737–816.Google Scholar
  3. Aukerman, MJ 2002, ‘Extraordinary evil, ordinary crime: A framework for understanding transitional justice’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 15, pp. 39–98.Google Scholar
  4. Balint, JL 1996, ‘The place of law in addressing internal regime conflicts’, Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 103–126.Google Scholar
  5. Braithwaite, J 2005, Markets in vice, markets in virtue, Federation Press, Annandale, NSW.Google Scholar
  6. Braithwaite, J, Braithwaite, V, Cookson, M and Dunn, L 2010, Anomie and violence: Non-truth and reconciliation in Indonesian peacebuilding, ANU E-Press, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  7. Braithwaite, J, Charlesworth, H and Soares, A 2012, Networked governance of greedom and tyranny: Peace in Timor-Leste, ANU E-Press, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Celermajer, D 2013, ‘Mere ritual? Displacing the myth of sincerity in transitional rituals’, International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 286–305.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, JN 2010, ‘Education in Bosnia-Hercegovina: The case for root and branch reform’, Journal of Human Rights, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 344–362.Google Scholar
  11. Cockayne, J 2005, ‘Hybrids or mongrels? Internationalized war crimes trials as unsuccessful degradation ceremonies’, Journal of Human Rights, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 455–473.Google Scholar
  12. Collier, P 2007, The bottom billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Collier, P 2009, Wars, guns and votes: Democracy in dangerous places, Bodley Head, London.Google Scholar
  14. Drumbl, MA 2007, Atrocity, punishment, and international law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Eriksen, EO 1994, ‘Deliberative democracy and the politics of plural society’, Paper presented at the Arena Conference on the Europeanization of Normative Theory, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Human Security Report Project 2012, Human Security Report 2012: Sexual Violence, Education and War: Beyond the Mainstream Narrative, Human Security Press, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Johnstone, G 2002, Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates, Willan Publishing, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  20. Karstedt, S 2010, ‘From absence to presence, from silence to voice: Victims in transitional justice since the Nuremberg trials’, International Review of Victimology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 9–30.Google Scholar
  21. Lambourne, W 2009, ‘Transitional justice and peacebuilding after mass violence’, The International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
  22. Lederach, JP 2003, The little book of conflict transformation, Good Books, Intercourse, PA.Google Scholar
  23. Lederach, JP 2010, Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies, 9th Printing, United States Institute of Peace, Washington.Google Scholar
  24. Llewellyn, JL and Philpott, D 2014, ‘Restorative justice and reconciliation: Twin frameworks for peacebuilding’, in Llewellyn, JL and Philpott, D (eds) Restorative Justice, Reconciliation and Peacebuilding, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Nickson, R and Braithwaite, J 2014, ‘Deeper, broader, longer transitional justice’, European Journal of Criminology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 445–463.Google Scholar
  27. Odendaal, A 2010, An architecture for building peace at the local level: A comparative study of local peace committees, United Nations Development Programme, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Ramji-Nogales, J 2010, ‘Designing bespoke transitional justice: A pluralist process approach’, Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–72.Google Scholar
  29. Scharf, MP 1996, ‘The case for a permanent international truth commission’, Duke Journal of International and Comparative Law, vol. 7, pp. 375–410.Google Scholar
  30. Stanley, E 2004, ‘Torture, silence and recognition’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 5–25.Google Scholar
  31. Sunstein, C 1995, ‘Incompletely theorized agreements’, Harvard Law Review, vol. 108, no. 7, pp. 1733–1772.Google Scholar
  32. Sunstein, C 1996, Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Sykes, GM and Matza, D 1957, ‘Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency’, American Sociological Review, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 664–670.Google Scholar
  34. U.S. Agency for International Development 1998, Managing Conflict: Lessons from the South African Peace Committees, USAID Evaluation Special Study Report No. 78.Google Scholar
  35. Zehr, H 1995, Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice, Herald Press, Scottdale, PA.Google Scholar
  36. Zehr, H 2002, The little book of restorative justice, Good Books, Intercourse, PA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fresno Pacific UniversityFresnoUSA
  2. 2.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations