Global Transitional Justice Norms and the Framing of Truth Commissions in the Absence of Transition

Eric Wiebelhaus‐Brahm

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research2020https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12194article
AJG 1ABDC C
Weight
0.55

What the paper says

Abstract As global transitional justice norms strengthen, governments face increasingly pressure to enact formal transitional justice mechanisms to resolve domestic conflict. This article examines how Bahrain, Morocco, and Sri Lanka attempted to exploit these norms to appease demands and stave off international transitional justice intervention by employing truth commissions. Governments framed truth commissions and their responses to their investigations as sufficient to address the past. To varying degrees, though, domestic audiences and the international community refused to accept this framing. As such, truth commission investigations and their reports failed to resolve the respective conflicts. Rather, they prolonged attention on governments’ past and present misdeeds. For governments, the risk this strategy backfires is higher when human rights violations have been more extensive and extreme, when governments construct a more obviously biased truth‐seeking process and display little interest in enacting recommendations, and when governments have failed to cultivate strong ties with Western powers.

6 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12194

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{eric2020,
  title        = {{Global Transitional Justice Norms and the Framing of Truth Commissions in the Absence of Transition}},
  author       = {Eric Wiebelhaus‐Brahm},
  journal      = {Negotiation and Conflict Management Research},
  year         = {2020},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12194},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Global Transitional Justice Norms and the Framing of Truth Commissions in the Absence of Transition

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.55

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.52 × 0.4 = 0.21
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.