Source: (2014) Cardozo Law Review. 35:2263-2348.
Almost forty years after the first truth commission convened and more than
sixty-seven others have been employed, there is little clarity on how they
contribute to their stated objectives and in which transitional contexts they
succeed or fail. This Article uses data gathered from my field research in
Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Liberia to develop a theoretical framework for
understanding in which contexts truth commissions may be the most
effective. Using insights from the legal transplant literature and applying it
to the diffusion of truth commissions, this Article finds that truth
commissions face greater challenges carrying out their mandates in postconflict
as opposed to post-authoritarians ocieties. In post-confict societies,
weak institutions to support a truth-telling process combined with large
numbers of victims and perpetrators will tend to overwhelm truth
commissions. These factors, along with the lack of moral consensus
surrounding mass violence, interact to make truth commissions function
less optimally in post-conflict contexts. This Article finds that despite their
widespread use in post-conflict and fragile states, truth commissions may
have more utility in post-authoritarian or even non-transitional states. In
sum, this Article argues that the kind of transition should determine the
kind of transitional-justicei nterventions employed. (author’s abstract)
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.
Donate Now