The performance and persistence of transitional justice and its ways of knowing atrocity

Abstract

Transitional justice, like other peacebuilding endeavours, strives to create change in the world and to produce knowledge that is useful. However, the politics of how this knowledge is produced, shared and rendered legitimate depends upon the relationships between different epistemic communities, the way in which transitional justice has developed as a field and the myriad contexts in which it is embedded at local, national and international levels. In particular, forms of ‘expert’ knowledge tend to be legal, foreign and based on models to be replicated elsewhere. Work on epistemic communities of peacebuilding can be usefully brought to bear on transitional justice, speaking to current debates in the literature on positionality, justice from below, marginalisation and knowledge imperialism. This article offers two contributions to the field of transitional justice: (1) an analysis of the way the field has developed as an epistemic community(ies) and the relevance of this for a politics of knowledge; and (2) an argument for the politics of knowledge to be more widely discussed and understood as a factor in shaping transitional justice policy and practice, and as a call to a more ethical relationship with the supposed beneficiaries of transitional justice interventions.

A processual framework for analysing liberal policy interventions in conflict contexts

“…This article posits that the ‘process gap’ in the analysis of internationalised processes of change stems from a strong analytical focus on goals, outcomes and effects that mirror approaches in practice, as well as a certain neglect of politics in the analysis. For internationalised processes of change, practice, as well as research, often follow a teleological, goal-oriented logic (Jones, 2021; Kappler, 2018; Wesley, 2008) – or, as Moe (2010: 7) puts it, focus on what ought to be . This logic may be related to a tight link between scholarship and practice (e.g.…”

“…TJ is essentially about processes of change. However, the focus in TJ is often on the goals, outcomes and effects of TJ efforts (Jones, 2021). The concept is closely linked to the ‘transition paradigm’ to liberal market democracy (Arthur, 2009) and exhibits goal-orientation, both in practice and in scholarship.…”

“…The concept is closely linked to the ‘transition paradigm’ to liberal market democracy (Arthur, 2009) and exhibits goal-orientation, both in practice and in scholarship. TJ efforts, which are introduced after conflict or violent rule, usually have (implicit or explicit) teleological ends, such as justice, peace and democracy, against which they measure ‘success’ (Jones, 2021: 4). Thus, one prominent strand of research either explores – normatively – what TJ should deal with or how it assesses – empirically – the extent to which certain goals have been reached.…”

“…Liberal interventions aimed at change often follow a linear, goal-oriented logic that encourages transition to liberal peace and/or market democracies as the desired endpoint. (Jones, 2021; Kappler, 2018; Wesley, 2008). This goal-oriented perspective is often mirrored in research focusing on ‘success’ and ‘failure’.…”

“…Critical scholarship moves beyond a focus on goals, outcomes and effects – on success and failure – and in doing so critiques parameters determined through the logic of the interveners (see, e.g. Danielsson, 2020b; Jones, 2021; Kappler, 2018; Sabaratnam, 2017; Schroeder, 2018). This strand of thought often adopts relational approaches (e.g.…”