'Do No Harm'? Exploring the Scope of Economic and Social Rights in Transitional Justice

Abstract

Increasing numbers of academics and practitioners are employing the language of economic and social rights (ESR) when conceptualizing the aims, scope and implementation mechanisms of transitional justice. Their contributions have added to an evolving debate on the boundaries of transitional justice. However, when employing rights language, the current debate on the economic and social dimensions of transitional justice frequently suffers from terminological and conceptual confusion. Problematically, it is not unusual for the claims made by transitional justice commentators with regard to ESR to be founded on apparent misconceptions about both the legal framework and the existing scholarship relating to ESR. Addressing these misconceptions in terms of four key dichotomies and suggesting the way forward, we prepare the ground for a more effective debate on the desirability and feasibility of incorporating ESR into transitional justice processes. In doing so, we assert that such a debate must be based on an accurate understanding of ESR and the obligations they impose. We conclude by demonstrating how inclusion of ESR considerations in transitional justice does not necessitate rethinking transitional justice as a whole.

Socioeconomic Justice and Peacebuilding

“…However, there remain challenges to an understanding of socioeconomic justice grounded in the human rights framework, as this leaves out some specifically socioeconomic forms of violence that are part of the nature of the conflict (including some that jeopardize the very subsistence of communities) (Sankey 2014;Schmid and Nolan 2014). For example, the legal acquisition of land and property for a fraction of their value due to ongoing conflict would not necessarily constitute a violation of economic and social rights (Ochoa-Sánchez 2019, p. 523).…”

Women, Gender, and Transitional Justice

“…74), the idea has remained controversial and has not always been successfully implemented. Rather, many transitional justice mechanisms have treated economic and social rights as background context while continuing to prioritize traditional civil and political rights violations (Cahill-Ripley 2014;Schmid and Nolan 2014;Myrttinen and Popovic 2019, p. 12).…”

Capturing transitional justice: exploring Colleen Murphy’sThe Conceptual Foundations of Transitional Justice

“…Critics contend that transitional justice is shaped by neo-liberal international agendas that sideline economic justice concerns (Mani 2002;Arbour 2007;Miller 2008;LaPlante 2008;Sharp 2015) and the role of oppression along lines of gender, ethnicity, indigeneity, and other systemic vectors in human rights abuses (Couillard 2007, Saris and Lofts 2009, Lambourne 2009, Gready & Robins 2014. The transformative wing of the literature sharply rebukes and rejects the predominant conception and practice of transitional justice (going well beyond the view that specific social, economic, and cultural rights violations need to be recognized as wrongs and dealt with by transitional measures (Schmid and Nolan 2014), and argues for its replacement or radical revision.…”