Courting Justice in Transitions

  • Ray Nickson
  • Alice Neikirk
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Compromise after Conflict book series (PSCAC)


Expectations are a significant issue for transitional justice institutions. Though the growing literature on transitional and post-conflict justice has identified an expectation problem, no work is dedicated to addressing it. An expectation gap exists—between anticipated and likely outcomes—for transitional justice. This gap reflects in many ways the limitations of providing single-institution justice responses. A number of scholars have noted that a single type of justice—for example only trials, or only a truth commission—can only satisfy a few of the many goals for justice. This study draws on data from the Former Yugoslavia and Cambodia to examine the effectiveness of a single mechanism response to mass atrocities.


  1. Akhavan, P 1993, ‘Punishing war crimes in the former Yugoslavia: A critical juncture for the new world order’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol 15, no. 2, pp. 262–289.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. Bassiouni, MC 1996, ‘Searching for peace and achieving justice: The need for accountability’, Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 9–28.Google Scholar
  6. Belgrade Center for Human Rights 2004, Attitudes towards the International Criminal tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 2004, Belgrade Center for Human Rights, Belgrade.Google Scholar
  7. Belgrade Center for Human Rights 2009, Attitudes towards the International Criminal tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 2009, Belgrade Center for Human Rights, Belgrade.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, C 2009, ‘Transitional justice, interdisciplinarity and the state of the ‘field’ or ‘non-field’’, International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5–27.Google Scholar
  9. Bertelman, H 2010, ‘International standards and national ownership? Judicial independence in hybrid courts: The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 341–382.Google Scholar
  10. Boyle, D 2006, ‘The rights of victims: Participation, representation, protection, reparation’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 307–313.Google Scholar
  11. Braithwaite, J 2005, ‘Between proportionality and impunity: Confrontation, truth, prevention’, Criminology, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 283–306.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Burke-White, W 2008, ‘The domestic influence of international criminal tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the creation of the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 279–350.Google Scholar
  14. Call, CT 2004, ‘Is transitional justice really just?’, Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 101–113.Google Scholar
  15. Cassese, A 1998, ‘Reflections on international criminal justice’, Modern Law Review, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  16. Chandler, D 2008, A History of Cambodia, 4th ed., Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, JN 2009a, ‘Judging the ICTY: Has it achieved its objectives?’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 123–142.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, JN 2009b, ‘The limits of retributive justice: Findings of an empirical study in Bosnia and Hercegovina’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 463–487.Google Scholar
  19. Crocker, DA 1999, ‘Reckoning with past wrongs: A normative framework’, Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 43–64.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Drumbl, MA 2003, ‘Toward a criminology of international crime’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 263–281.Google Scholar
  22. Etcheson, C 2005, After the killing fields: Lessons from the Cambodian genocide, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  23. Filipovic, Z 2006, Zlata’s diary: A child’s life in wartime Sarajevo, Penguin, New York.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Galtung, J 1969, ‘Violence, peace, and peace research’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 167–191.Google Scholar
  26. Glenny, M 1996, The fall of Yugoslavia, 3rd edition, Penguin, London.Google Scholar
  27. Hafner, D and King, E 2007, ‘Beyond traditional notions of transitional justice: How trials, truth commissions and other tools for accountability can and should work together’, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 91–109.Google Scholar
  28. Hazan, P 2004, Justice in a time of war: The true story behind the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
  29. Hinton, AL 2005, Why did they kill? Cambodia in the shadow of genocide, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  30. Hodzic, R 2010, ‘Living the legacy of mass atrocities: Victims’ perspectives on war crimes trials’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 113–136.Google Scholar
  31. Horsington, H 2004, ‘The Cambodian Khmer Rouge tribunal: The promise of a hybrid tribunal’, Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 462–483.Google Scholar
  32. Humphrey, M 2003, ‘From victim to victimhood: Truth commissions and trials as rituals of political transition and individual healing’, The Australian Journal of Anthropology, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 171–187.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Iyer, V 2007, ‘Of prosecutions and amnesties: Does Fiji’s experience suggest a reconsideration?’, Australian Journal of Asian Law, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
  35. Joyner, CC 1993, ‘Enforcing human rights standards in the former Yugoslavia: The case for an international war crimes tribunal’, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, vol. 22, no. 2 & 2, p. 235.Google Scholar
  36. Kiernan, B 2004, How Pol Pot came to power: Colonialism, nationalism and communism in Cambodia 1930–1975, 2nd ed, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  37. Kiernan, B 2008a, The Pol Pot regime: Race, power, and genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975–79, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  38. Kiernan, B 2008b, Genocide and resistance in South East Asia: Documentation, denial and justice in Cambodia and East Timor, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  39. Klein, KM 2006, ‘Bringing the Khmer Rouge to justice: The challenge and risks facing the joint tribunal in Cambodia’, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 549–566.Google Scholar
  40. Kong, SO 2008, ‘Jurisdiction ratione personae of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia: Peace vs. justice’, Forum of International Development Studies, vol. 37, pp. 149–167.Google Scholar
  41. Landsman, S 1996, ‘Alternative responses to serious human rights abuses: Of prosecution and truth commissions’, Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 81–92.Google Scholar
  42. Leebaw, BA 2008, ‘The irreconcilable goals of transitional justice’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 95–118.Google Scholar
  43. Lloyd, A 2014, My war gone by, I miss it so, Penguin, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Luftglass, S 2004, ‘Crossroads in Cambodia: The United Nation’s responsibility to withdraw involvement from the establishment of a Cambodian tribunal to prosecute the Khmer Rouge’, Virginia Law Review, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 893–964.Google Scholar
  45. Marks, SP 1994, ‘Forgetting “the policies and practices of the past”: Impunity in Cambodia’, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 17.Google Scholar
  46. Margolis, JE 2007, ‘Trauma and the trials of reconciliation in Cambodia: View from the ground’, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 153–161.Google Scholar
  47. McEvoy, K 2007, ‘Beyond legalism: Towards a thicker understanding of transitional justice’, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 411–440.Google Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. McMahon, PC and Forsythe, DP 2008, ‘The ICTY’s impact on Serbia: Judicial romanticism meets network politics’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 412–435.Google Scholar
  50. Meernik, J 2005, ‘Justice and peace? How the international criminal tribunal affects societal peace in Bosnia’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 271–289.Google Scholar
  51. Meron, T 1993a, ‘The case for war crimes trials in Yugoslavia’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 122–135.Google Scholar
  52. Meron, T 1993b, ‘Rape as a crime under international humanitarian law’, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 424–428.Google Scholar
  53. Nettlefield, LJ 2010a, Courting democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Hague tribunal’s impact in a postwar state, Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Nettlefield, LJ 2010b, ‘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
  55. Nickson, R 2017, ‘Unmet expectations and the legitimacy of transitional justice institutions’ in Karstedt, S and Brants, C (eds),Engagement, contestation and legitimacy,Hart Publishing, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  56. O’Brien, JC 1993, ‘The international tribunal for violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia’, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 639–659.Google Scholar
  57. Olsen, TD, Payne, LA and Reiter, AG 2010, ‘The justice balance: When transitional justice improves human rights and democracy’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 980–1007.Google Scholar
  58. Orentlicher, D 1991, ‘Settling accounts: The duty to prosecute human rights violations of a prior regime’, The Yale Law Journal, vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 2537–2615.Google Scholar
  59. Orentlicher, D 2010, That someone guilty be punished: The impact of the ICTY in Bosnia, The Open Society Justice Initiative, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Pham, P, Vinck, P, Balthazard, M, Hean, S and Stover, E 2009, So we will never forget: A population based survey on attitudes about social reconstruction and The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  61. Pham, PN, Vinck, P, Balthazard, M, Strasser, J and Om, C 2011. ‘Victim participation and the trial of Duch at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, Journal of Human Rights Practice, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 264–287.Google Scholar
  62. Philpott, D 2012. Just and unjust peace: An ethic of political reconciliation, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  63. Ratner, SR 1999, ‘The United Nations Group of Experts for Cambodia’, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 948–953.Google Scholar
  64. Reisman, WM 1996, ‘Legal responses to genocide and other massive violations of human rights’, Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 75–80.Google Scholar
  65. Saxon, D 2005, ‘Exporting justice: Perceptions of the ICTY among the Serbian, Croatian and Muslim communities in the former Yugoslavia’, Journal of Human Rights, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 559–572.Google Scholar
  66. Scharf, MP 1996, ‘The prosecutor v Dusko Tadic: An appraisal of the first international war crimes trial since Nuremberg’, Albany Law Review, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 861–882.Google Scholar
  67. Scharf, MP 1997, Balkan justice: The story behind the first international war crimes trial since Nuremberg, Carolina Academic Press, Durham, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  68. Schrag, M 2004 ‘Lessons learned from ICTY Experience’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 427–434.Google Scholar
  69. Silber, L and Little, A 1997, Yugoslavia: Death of a nation, Revised Edition, Penguin, New York.Google Scholar
  70. Simpson, G 1997, ‘Didactic and dissident histories in war crimes trials’, Albany Law Review, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 801–839.Google Scholar
  71. Spoerri, M and Freyberg-Inan, A 2008, ‘From prosecution to persecution: Perceptions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in Serbian domestic politics’, Journal of International Relations and Development, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 350–384.Google Scholar
  72. Teitel, R 2005, ‘The law and politics of contemporary transitional justice’, Cornell International Law Journal, vol. 38, pp. 837–862.Google Scholar
  73. The Human Rights Center and the International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California Berkeley, and the Centre for Human Rights, Sarajevo, 2000, ‘Justice, accountability and social reconstruction: An interview study of Bosnian judges and prosecutors’, Berkeley Journal of International Law, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 102–164.Google Scholar
  74. 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.Google Scholar
  75. Un, K and Ledgerwood, J 2010, ‘Is the trial of ‘Duch’ a catalyst for change in Cambodia’s courts?’, Asia Pacific Issues—Analysis From the East-West Center No 95, East-West Center.Google Scholar
  76. United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, Identical Letters dated 23 June 1997 from the Secretary General addressed to the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council, 23 June 1997, UN Doc. A/51/135-s/1997/488 (letter dated 21 June 1997 from the First and Second Prime Ministers of Cambodia addressed to the Secretary-General annexed thereto).Google Scholar
  77. Villa-Vicencio, C 2000, ‘Why perpetrators should not always be prosecuted’, Emory Law Journal, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 205–222.Google Scholar
  78. Wilson, R 2005, ‘Judging history: The historical record of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 908–942.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations