How and When Amnesty during Conflict Affects Conflict Termination

Abstract

In the difficult process of ending civil wars, granting amnesty during conflict is seen as a useful option, with an underpinning assumption that trading justice for peace is effective. However, is the case? This article tries to bring some clarity to when and how amnesty given during conflict has an impact. Amnesty should have different effects on diverse conflict endings: negotiated settlement, rebel victory, government victory, or conflict reduction. The article also disaggregates amnesties to test direct impacts as an incentive or through reducing the commitment problem, and indirect effects that give military advantage to the government. Using a cross-national data set of amnesties in dyadic conflicts from 1975 to 2011, the research finds that amnesty’s strongest effect is, surprisingly, not as an incentive but rather to reduce commitment problems. It can lead to negotiated settlements but also to government military advantage. The results have implications for negotiations and conflict resolution.

Justice Now and Later: How Measures Taken to Address Wrongdoings during Armed Conflict Affect Postconflict Justice

“…Whereas scholars on transitional justice focus on institutions deployed to address wartime abuses after conflict, conflict researchers have examined trials, truth commissions, reparations and amnesties adopted during armed conflict and their implications (Loyle and Binningsbø 2018). Preliminary research along this line of inquiry has showed that adopting these institutions can shape conflict dynamics, including violence levels, as well as conflict termination and the sustainability of peace (Loyle and Binningsbø 2018;Dancy and Wiebelhaus-Brahm 2018;Daniels 2020). How conflict dynamics shape justice institutions, however, has received less attention within this line of research (though see Lake 2017; Loyle 2020).…”

“…Loyle and Binningsbø (2018) identify more than 2,205 'during-conflict justice' processes implemented amid conflict, with at least one process in over 60 percent of armed conflicts since World War II. The primary focus of conflict research on justice institutions is to examine links between justice institutions, on the one hand, and conflict dynamics and conflict termination, on the other (Dancy 2018;Dancy and Wiebelhaus-Brahm 2018;Daniels 2020;Loyle and Binningsbø 2018;Kersten 2016). Less attention has been paid to examining how conflict dynamics shape justice institutions, inquiring the role of civil society (though see Stokke and Wiebelhaus-Brahm 2022), and further unpacking conflict dynamics and justice institutions in both the during and post-conflict period.…”

Syrian Diaspora Mobilization for Prospective Transitional Justice in the Absence of Transition

“…For example, the Guatemalan government established a truth commission while its conflict with insurgents was still ongoing (Loyle, 2017), and Colombia's Congress promulgated a Justice and Peace Law in 2005 as civil war raged (Laplante & Theidon, 2006). Existing DCJ research, however, has focused almost exclusively on prosecutions and amnesties in the midst of conflict (Dancy, 2018;Dancy & Wiebelhaus-Brahm, 2018;Daniels, 2020). Overwhelmingly, they have focused on the strategic calculations of governments, armed opponents, and the international community in creating and responding to trial threats and amnesty offers.…”

Stick Then Carrot: When Do Governments Give Amnesty during Civil War?

“…Amnesties affect the conflict dynamics and context for conflict termination. Research on the outcomes of amnesties show that they can make negotiated settlements more likely (Daniels 2020). The presence of an amnesty will also constrain future options and the post-conflict environment.…”