Not All Pandora’s Boxes Are the Same: If Transitional Justice Is to Be Effective a One-size-fits-all Approach Is Not the Right Choice

By Domenico Carofiglio

Domenico Carofiglio graduated from the War Studies Department of King’s College London in 2016. He is now pursuing a double degree in Public Policy and Development at Sciences Po Paris and Bocconi University.

Abstract

This article analyses the role of transitional justice as a tool able to establish a link between the local and global, the national and international, the particular and the universal. By drawing on examples from Nigeria and East-Timor, this article explores the tension between the global and the local, and the resulting outcomes when one excessively overcomes the other. In doing so, the article looks at the effectiveness and relevance of transitional justice by focusing on its relation with the discourses of global politics, arguing that for transitional justice to be effective a one-size-fits-all dimension is to be discarded in favour of an application of transitional justice as a legal tool that helps communities to find their own way to come to terms with a tormented past. The imposition of de jure universally-applicable rules does not necessarily bring about de facto effectiveness of such rules; the local realities where these rules apply cannot be ignored. This paper begins by defining transitional justice, globalisation and globalised politics, and it will shed light on what is meant by local needs. Building on the definitions provided, the second section will outline a theoretical framework for the arguments at issue, by focusing the attention on the link between transitional justice and global politics; as will be seen, such a connection is theoretically informed by concepts of globalisation, glocalisation and liberalism. Finally, beyond the traditional examples used in the transitional justice literature, such as those of Rwanda and Uganda, the essay focuses on the cases of Nigeria and East-Timor.

An Introduction to Transitional Justice

‘Transitional justice as a concept emerged from a global wave of political transitions’ (Apland, 2012). Indeed, those countries that recently transitioned to democracy could not do so without coming to terms with their tormented past. Abuses and wrongdoings had to be addressed and overcome in order to pave the way for intergroup and national reconciliation. This is how transitional justice came about. In his seminal article “Democracy’s Third Wave”, Samuel Hungtinton stated that since the beginning of the 1970s up until the end of the century, ‘at least 30 countries made transitions to democracy’ (1991, p.12). The concept of transitional justice is strongly interwoven with the broader phenomena of democratisation, and ultimately, with globalisation. More precisely, the discourse of transitional justice today has a global normative reach whose ramifications extensively affect international affairs (Teitel, 2014).

This article shall analyse the role of transitional justice as a tool able to establish a link between the local and global, the national and international, the particular and the universal. By drawing on examples from Nigeria and East-Timor, this article will hence explore the tension between the global and the local, and the resulting outcomes when one excessively overcomes the other. In doing so, it will look at the effectiveness and relevance of transitional justice by focusing on its relation with the discourses of global politics, arguing that for transitional justice to be effective a one-size-fits-all dimension is to be discarded in favour of an application of transitional justice as a legal tool that helps communities to find their own way to come to terms with a tormented past. The imposition of de jure universally-applicable rules does not necessarily bring about de facto effectiveness of such rules; the local realities where these rules apply cannot be ignored. This paper begins by defining transitional justice , globalisation and globalised politics, and it will shed light on what is meant by local needs. Building on the definitions provided, the second section will outline a theoretical framework for the arguments at issue, by focusing the attention on the link between transitional justice and global politics; as will be seen, such a connection is theoretically informed by concepts of globalisation, glocalisation and liberalism. Finally, beyond the traditional examples used in the transitional justice literature, such as those of Rwanda and Uganda, the essay focuses on the original cases of Nigeria and East-Timor.

A matter of definitions

The concept of transitional justice points out at a legal scholarship. However, it would be quite simplistic to look at it as a mere subject of judicial academic inquiry. Indeed, the theorisation and mise en œuvre of transitional justice is an enterprise that involves not only academicians but also, for its very nature, a plethora of other actors ranging from human rights activists and lawyers to sociologists, anthropologists and policy-makers (Hinton, 2010; Rush and Simic, 2014). To be clear, by drawing on the definitions offered by a series of authoritative sources, transitional justice can essentially be seen as a set of judicial and non-judicial mechanisms to achieve peace and reconciliation and to restore justice in societies affected by mass atrocities and wrongdoings committed by authoritarian and repressive regimes (Roth-Arriaza and Marriezcurrena, p.1; Teitel, 2003, p.893; Mani, 2002, p.17; UN Secretary General, 2004, p.5). When defining transitional justice, Hinton adds that ‘it is critical to explore how a sense of justice after genocide and mass violence is always negotiated within particular localities enmeshed with global and transnational flows of ideas and ideologies’ (2010, p.1). Hinton’s consideration touches upon the link between transitional justice and globalisation on a conceptual level; this link will be further analysed in the theoretical section.

Joseph Stiglitz generally provides a standard definition of globalisation as ‘the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world […] and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge, and people across borders’ (2002, p.3). The Global Politics scholarship investigates the processes resulting from political globalisation in relation to questions of social power. At the heart of the field is the emergence and growing influence of international organisations, non-state actors, multinational corporations and social movements, all at the expense of the state and its Westphalian significance (Nye, 1990). Equally important, global politics concerns matters of global governance and decision-making which fluctuate between, and are in tension with, the national and supranational.

Whereas the previous definitions are straightforward, it is rather difficult to define what local needs are really about. In its ‘one-size-fits-all solutions’ conceptualisation (Nagy, 2008, p.287), transitional justice serves the purpose of shedding light on abuses and atrocities and its perpetrators in order to create a democratic society. Reconciliation of those who have survived is thus fundamental to fulfil the ultimate objectives of establishing a human rights regime, rule of law and democracy. However, these liberal globalised principles are not always an adequate response to what the local needs truly are (see theoretical section). In the context of North-African countries that are de jure transitioning to democracy after the Arab Spring, the ‘Islamists largely reject the universal claims of human rights, stressing rather the specificity of local needs and contexts and a different set of norms’ (Robins, 2015, p.187). While it is debatable the extent to which these countries are de facto transitioning to democracy, agreement can be reached on the argument that local needs should be always defined depending on the reality in question and on ad-hoc basis. While each and every reality should not remain insulated from the global, it is not necessarily the case that all realities are apt for the appliance of universal ‘liberal democratic politics and neoliberal economics’ (Robins, 2015, p.190) that are part of the liberal globalisation “package” brought about by transitional justice (see case-study section). Local needs are undoubtedly subject to specific circumstances that change from case to case.

To conclude on these points, globalisation results in specific processes which raise issues at the heart of the academic inquiry of global politics. In light of the connection between transitional justice, globalisation and global politics, Ruti G. Teitel notes that ‘important normative questions arise in the interaction of transitional justice and globalisation’ (Teitel, 2002, p.899). Framed in global politics terms, Teitel (2002, p.899) asks: ‘at what level should the relevant decision-making regarding transitional justice occur?’. Teitel’s considerations bring us to the following section that provides a theoretical rationale for better understanding the relation between global politics and transitional justice.

A theoretical framework: transitional justice, globalisation, glocalisation, and liberalism

Globalisation

By looking at the relation between globalisation and transitional justice, it is shown that globalisation has the effect of making transitional justice a technocratic legal tool that ignores lived realities. That is, globalisation makes transitional justice more detached from the local realities it deals with and it shifts transitional justice’s very objectives from the establishing of democracy and the rule of law in a country transitioning to democracy, to the mere ‘adherence [of that country] to a modicum order’ (Teitel, 2002, p.898). The glocalisation discourse provides an understanding of globalisation whereby the global and the local are seen in complementarity rather than in contradiction with each other (Robertson, 1994). Indeed, as long as there is excessive emphasis on one way or the other, transitional justice will not be able to grasp the demands of lived realities and correctly address them in relation to globalised politics. The fact that transitional justice primarily looks at high politics rather than starting from ‘the deep politics of a society and asking what this implies for the high politics of the state’ (Andrieu, 2010, p.545) demonstrates how transitional justice is fundamentally entrenched with a liberal ideology; whereby political rights are privileged over social, economic and cultural ones. This further limits the capacity of transitional justice to understand local realities and to correctly frame the latter in the now globalised texture of world politics.

Against the background of the complex relationship between globalisation and transitional justice, Teitel discusses ‘the increasing detachment of transitional justice from local politics and its corresponding transformation into a form of global law and politics’ as well as its ‘increasing globalisation’ (2014, p.1). Hence, the issue of the impact of globalisation on transitional justice’s appliance seems to be one of agreement (Teitel, 2014). Nonetheless, it is not clear whether globalisation directs transitional justice towards a decentralisation of justice by accommodating global forces to local realities or rather to judicial decision-making occurring at the global level (Teitel, 2002). In this regard, Teitel states that despite being born as a tool for spreading a universal rights paradigm, after the Cold War transitional justice came to be too entrenched in local ideas of legitimacy and the rule of law, with the risk of ignoring the actual power politics framework induced by ‘post-Cold War globalising transformations’ (Teitel, 2002, p.893).

Transitional justice’s vacillation between the local and the supranational is symptomatic of the tension at the heart of ‘contemporary global politics’ (Teitel, 2002, p.893). Despite Teitel’s sound arguments in “Transitional Justice in a New Era” (2002) whereby she argues that globalised transitional justice is in fact too local in its legal approach, it appears instead that globalisation is forcing transitional justice towards the application of liberal globalised principles, such as the rule of law, democracy and human rights while ignoring tout court local specificities and their interaction with global political mechanisms. In fact, Nagy affirms that the actual impact of globalisation on transitional justice is that its response to local realities is made in globalised legalistic terms which are too abstract if the aim is to positively engage with local ‘lived realities’ (Nagy cited in Teitel, 2002 p.276). Similarly, Hinton suggests that by considering justice as something transcendent and universally applicable, the local perceptions of justice are ignored and this dooms transitional justice to certain failure (Hinton, 2010). By analysing the case studies of Nigeria and East-Timor, this essay will show that Teitel’s arguments on the globalised nature of transitional justice, as well as its ‘independent potential’ (Nagy, 2008, p.277) in shaping political and social transitions, are not universally applicable. The independent power of justice is not effective ‘in societies such as those of the Arab world […] where the secular assumptions of a globalised liberalism are rejected by significant segments of the population, as well as important political actors’ (Robins, 2015, p.287). Consent and legitimacy are clearly a conditio sine qua non if transitional justice is to be efficient in allowing war-torn societies to come to terms with past violence and repression. In line with Nagy’s argument, the case studies will prove that globalised transitional justice is often blind to the very local needs it tries to engage with.

Globalisation not only influences transitional justice in the application of an international legalist paradigm far from local realities, but more importantly it also alters the objectives of transitional justice. Globalisation often results in the devolution of the nation-state paradigm whereby the traditional state power is heavily constrained, hence transitional justice has a shift in its goals: whilst originally aiming at bringing about democracy and the rule of law, globalisation forces transitional justice to pursue more modest goals of peace and stability, and more generally human security (Teitel, 1999; 2002; 2014). The question is whether this kind of response brought about by globalisation is more appropriate and universally applicable than the original aims of the rule of law and democracy. As touched upon in the definition of globalisation and global politics, there are today new actors besides the traditional and supreme agency of states in the international arena; this development must necessarily mean that there are more interests at stake which are not only linked to states but also to transnational NGOs and more generally to the global civil society (Nye, 1990). From a normative perspective, it is plausible to think that by promoting peace, the rule of law and democracy will necessarily come along. However, as Teitel (2002) argues, it is unclear how short-term peace-making operations will eventually bring about the advancement of the rule of law. Given these considerations, the question regarding the appropriateness of today’s transitional justice objectives as imposed by globalisation can hardly be answered, especially in normative terms. Nonetheless, it can be argued that the recent focus of transitional justice on general human security is more applicable to highly diverse local realities than the liberal principles of rule of law and democracy (Teitel, 2014).

Glocalisation

The progression of transitional justice with globalising politics implies a bi-dimensional interaction of the supranational/global and the national/local. To analyse this interaction, Roland Robertson (1994) uses the term glocalisation, which he intends as a deconstruction of globalisation. The term synthetises the broader concepts of globalisation and localisation not as an antinomy but rather as being in a continuous interaction whereby ‘the global is not in and of itself counter posed to the local’ (Robertson, 1994, p.35). The concept of glocalisation does not modify the considerations made with regards to globalisation’s impact on transitional justice; nonetheless, it helps to understand the complex dimension where transitional justice operates and how it could be improved. Robertson (1994) argues that it is incorrect to see the local assertions of norms, rules and identities as against, and at the same time, challenged by globalising trends. Transitional justice should ultimately work for the connection of these dimensions – supranational and national, universal and particular. That is, by looking at transitional justice through glocal lenses, the former could be envisaged as a tool where the global and the local are harmonised and in mutual complementarity, rather than an international legalist paradigm which works at the expense of local assertions of justice.

Therefore, it can be argued that the glocalisation discourse could help transitional justice overcome the traditional polarity between the global and local found in both Teitel and Rosemary Nagy’s works on the globalisation of transitional justice. In this sense, Robertson (1994) refers to the idea of a global culture as ultimately informed and shaped by local cultures. This interconnectedness, in Robertson’s thinking, does not envisage global culture as a mere ‘homogenisation of all cultures’ (1994, p.31). On the contrary, when one refers to the idea of global justice, it can be argued that rather than trying to engage with and be receptive to local conceptions of justice, transitional justice might eventually end up becoming a homogenising tool for global justice. When the global Westernised justice paradigm completely ignores local needs, local specificities and societal demands are likely to put into question the legitimacy of one-size-fits-all international legal institutions as the International Criminal Court. This was exactly the case in the context of Rwanda and Uganda’s transition to democracy whereby Rwandan neo-traditional gacaca courts – community-level courts based on Rwandan traditional law – and Uganda’s mato oput – ceremony set up for reconciling former enemies – and other traditional cleansing ceremonies were preferred and called upon by the local populations vis-à-vis the International Criminal Court-led procedures (Nagy, 2008; Andrieu, 2010). Both cases eventually demonstrated how justice at the local level can be, in specific circumstances, much more effective and appropriate in order to pave the way for de facto reconciliation in conflict-ridden communities. Unfortunately, the conceptual underpinnings of the transitional justice discourse are still too reliant on global vs. local antagonistic perspectives. A glocal approach, instead, would be most appropriate in picking up what is useful from global liberal practices of justice, without dismissing the importance of allowing local communities to find their own way to deal with past sufferings (Robins, 2014; Schabas, 2005).

Liberalism

Robins (2014) draws a line between liberalism, globalisation, and transitional justice. ‘Liberal hegemony has permitted globalisation, not just of rights but also of neoliberal economics, and it is no coincidence that the goals of transitional justice align perfectly with the integration of transitional states into global markets’ (Robins, 2014, p.187). A globalised liberalism manifestly informs transitional justice. The relationship is clear: regardless of the realities transitional justice encounters, the traditional response is built on the imposition of a series of liberal normative goods ranging from the rule of law to human rights, from combating impunity to ultimate justice (Robins, 2014). Spence (2010) notices how the US’s response to 9/11 led the Bush administration to implement transitional theory and practice which ‘hijacked the tenets of liberalism, emphasising the universal appeal and relevance of democratic government and the free market for countries labouring under oppressive rule in the Third World in particular’ (Spence, 2010, p.4). However, unconditional appliance of the liberal paradigm to transitional justice is far from being unchallenged.

In theoretical terms, Kora Andrieu (2010) notes that the liberal character of transitional justice stems from its top-down approach to state-building which means that the primary focus of transitional justice is on high politics, namely building democratic institutions. Andrieu goes on to argue that looking at the deep politics of society, which is what the people mean to be legitimate in terms of governance, would be more effective in nurturing democracy in the state. Andrieu (2010) observes that liberal transitional justice is effectively committed to the building of democratic institutions – often unsuccessfully. According to Andrieu (2010), transitional justice’s primary objective should instead be about promoting a culture of democracy through a more spontaneous bottom-up approach. The global liberal paradigm that transitional justice brings about translates not only to an unbalanced focus on high-politics over civil society’s interests, but also in the excessive privileging of political rights over economic and cultural ones (Andrieu, 2010). Little attention is paid to the relationship between transitional justice and development because the actual model of liberal transition ‘focuses only on liberalising growth and marketisation without taking into account wider demands for social justice’ (Andrieu, 2010, p.544). This is also argued by Renaut (2005) who claims that transitional justice should be more detached from the liberal-legalist paradigm which favours political rights of freedom and liberty and which overlooks cultural, social and economic rights. A top-down state building approach to transitional justice and the fact that it glosses over social, cultural and economic rights in favour of political ones, ‘show the limits of the state-based, legalist and neoliberal approach to transitional justice’ (Andrieu, 2010, p.554). The following section will back up the arguments hitherto made by demonstrating how transitional justice unsuccessfully connects local needs and globalised politics when it is either too global or too local.

Transitional justice in operation: relevant case studies of local dynamics affecting and affected by global politics

Going beyond the traditional examples used by transitional justice academic enquiry, such as those of Rwanda and Uganda, the rest of the article focuses on two overlooked cases: Nigeria and East-Timor. The former shows how global liberal values can be manipulated by local extremists when the appliance of transitional justice highlights the hypocrisy of the liberal paradigm felt by the local population. The case of East-Timor illustrates how excessive reliance on local forms of justice – which are nevertheless instructed with liberal dictates in their quest for accountability – risks losing sight of transitional justice’s very objectives, that is, the fundamental pursuit of justice and the search for truth.

Transitional justice in Nigeria: when violence is conducted in the name of liberal principles

Growing violence in Nigeria is an issue that has recently received international attention due to the mass killings by the terrorist group Boko Haram in 2009 (The Guardian, 2009). Prior to this tragedy, Nigeria had been experiencing protracted violence as a means of enforcement of the Sharia law. Effectively, in the early 2000s, Nigeria transitioned to a civilian democratic government after the country’s military coup d’état in 1966. The democratisation process of Nigeria is still on-going and since its beginning in 1999, it has been characterised by violent conflicts ‘over the legal bounds of identity and citizenship, civility and criminality, with armed youths the new agents of policing’ (Casey, 2006, p. 119). Such violence, as Hinton argues, results from the ‘vernacularisation of liberal ideals associated with transitional justice in northern Nigeria’ (2010, p.12). The example of Nigeria and its transition from military to democratic rule is emblematic of a particular dynamic of interaction between globalised politics and local needs as mediated by transitional justice. In this specific case study, it is shown how local religious, social norms and beliefs can interact with liberalism, global justice and globalised practice in a way that the global is adapted by the local and made fit for it, whereas often the reverse occurs. Hinton synthetises this argument by affirming that Nigerian ‘youth, enmeshed in the intersection of liberal universalism […] and their on-the-ground observations of the world, actively construct their identity, moral and social status […] through a violence they assert as just’ (Hinton, 2010, p.13).

Beyond the transition process, what is relevant is the reaction of Muslim youths, particularly in Kano State, towards their forced induction to liberal universalism and the imposition of global ideas operated by Western European government personnel and the Nigerian leadership (Casey, 2006). The violent enforcement of Sharia law stems from the felt hypocrisy of Kano youths which resulted from the clash of espoused and imposed liberal ideals with the recollection of a hurtful colonial past and with the ‘mediated images of Abu Graib […] and the war in Iraq’ (Casey, 2006, p.120; Nye, 2008). Muslim Hausa are the majority of the population and their adoption of Sharia is claimed to be democratic on the grounds that, simply put, they are the largest ethnic group. They consider Sharia as a democratic alternative to the new allegedly-democratic government which they instead perceive as a “recolonisation” and the expression of the global war against Muslims combined together (Casey, 2006). The mechanism whereby the global is adapted by local actors and is made fit for their needs and social demands is clear in the Nigerian case. As argued by Casey (2006), the Muslim Hausa manipulated the language of human rights and what they see as the democratic principle of majority rules to give legitimacy and implement Sharia. The felt hypocrisy of espoused liberal universalism motivates Kano youth to use violence as a legitimate means of ensuring justice. The latter is ‘based on the idea of democratic majority Muslim Hausa rule’ and as Casey concludes is at ‘the cross roads of liberal universalism […] and religious orthodoxies where yan daba [Nigerian urban ward gang members] and Hisba [the enforcing wing of the Sharia Implementation Committee] enter the realms of blood sacrifice’ (Casey, 2006 p.133). In other words, this case study epitomises a core issue of transitional justice which is the friction/reaction between globalised politics and local needs; an ultimate tension of the global politics discourse between the supranational and national.

The peculiarity of this case however stands in an unusual process, whereby the local appropriates global discourses through transitional justice in such a manner that the manipulation of global liberal principles is used to empower local religious extremism. The balance of transitional justice between the local and global is in favour of the local in a very distorted way, which eventually results in regionally concentrated violence being conducted in the name of liberal universal principles.

Transitional justice in East-Timor: international justice cannot be a chimera

Protracted violence that occurred in East Timor from 1974 to 1999 was the direct consequence of Indonesian President Soeharto’ invasion and subsequent annexation of East Timor. When the country was freed from Indonesian chains in the late 1990s, the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) set up the Special Panels of the Dili District Court to investigate the crimes committed during the Indonesian occupation. Through the case study of East-Timor, Elizabeth F. Drexler (2010) further supports the thesis that success for transitional justice does not stand either in the blind appliance of international legalist principles or overly-local forms of justice. It is rather in the concurrence of the two dimensions that transitional justice can effectively meet local needs while remaining in harmony with globalising politics. Drexler argues that an excessive localisation of accountability for the crimes committed during the conflict made it impossible to identify the very perpetrators of several human rights violations during the Indonesian occupation; violations which were in fact committed by international actors, of which many were indeed Indonesians but also included a significant number of Western countries who indirectly upheld the Indonesian military occupation, such as the US (Drexler, 2010; Nagy, 2008).

On the one hand, the case of East-Timor shows how the international legalist paradigm too often sees justice in terms of accountability rather than advancing the very objectives of transitional justice, that is, intergroup and national reconciliation (Drexler, 2010). However, if it is true that accountability and consequent prosecutions are somehow essential to move on after prolonged periods of human rights violations, it is also true that when the burden of justice is completely left into local hands in the hope that global legalist norms will be upheld, the consequences are unforeseeable. The hybrid courts set up for East-Timor proved to be ineffective in bringing justice. The UN, in fact, created a Special Panel for holding perpetrators accountable. However, its jurisdictional prerogatives were highly criticised for being too local in their reach. With very little cooperation from the Indonesian authorities, the East Timor Tribunal trials ended up leaving many Indonesian alleged perpetrators of human rights violations and other foreign actors almost unpunished (Drexler, 2010).

When affirming that transitional justice needs to take what is useful from the global liberal practice, one is referring to such tools as an international legal framework covering human rights violations with both de jure and de facto jurisdiction and enforcement power. In the case of East-Timor that would have been crucial to address ‘the international components of injustice and their implications in the conditions of possibility for specific acts of violence’ (Drexler, 2010, p.51). International tribunals charged with the upholding of the international legal framework for human rights violations would certainly help bringing powerful non-Timorese actors to justice (Drexler, 2010). East-Timor demonstrates that there are instances where the international legalist paradigm can fail, such as in the unconditional demand for accountability rather the reconciliation. Nonetheless, it also shows that the global liberal practice has much to offer in the pursuit of justice and truth. For example, the absence of an international tribunal prosecuting human rights violators translated into the impossibility of bringing foreign actors involved in the violence before a court.

Both case studies lead to the conclusion that the appliance of transitional justice needs to be balanced between global and local dimensions and that the liberal practice is not a one-size-fits-all solution. In Nigeria, the hypocrisy of espoused liberalism led to violence. In East-Timor, the almost absence of international legal practice left non-Timorese human rights violators unpunished. As these cases show, even if in quite diverse circumstances, transitional justice is not currently effective in connecting globalised politics and local needs.

Transitional justice at crossroads

The analysis in this article sheds light on how the process of globalisation – entailing what is defined as a global human rights regime – together with ‘liberal democratic politics and neoliberal economics’ (Robins, 2015, p.190), does affect the role of transitional justice in mediating globalised politics and local needs. In light of that, this article argues that if transitional justice is to be effective in the connection between globalised politics and local needs, it will have to take from the ‘global liberal practice what is useful’ (Robins, 2015, p.190) whilst always supporting locally-contextualised communities to find their own way to come to terms with a tormented past (Robins, 2015). In short, transitional justice needs to be more glocal in its approach. To be sure, whether transitional justice’s revised approach will bear fruit is not certain but it is quite clear that, at least for the time being, transitional justice is unable to bridge the gap between globalised politics and local needs. Transitional justice now faces a choice between persisting in trying to instill liberal practices with little success, or attempting to glocally collide ‘strategies, institutions and norms of a global practice with everyday lives of local actors impacted by violations’ (Robins, 2015, p.188).

Bibliography

Andrieu, K. 2010. Civilizing Peacebuilding: Transitional Justice, Civil Society and the Liberal Paradigm. Security Dialogue, 41(5), pp.537-558.

Apland, K. 2012). The Power and Politics of Transitional Justice. [Online] available from: http://justiceinconflict.org/2012/01/16/the-power-and-politics-of-transitional-justice/ [accessed: 1th March 2015].

Arbour, L. 2006. “Economic and Social Justice for Societies in Transition”, Second Annual Transitional Justice Lecture hosted by the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law and by the International Center for Transitional Justice, 25 October, New York University School of Law; available at http://www.chrgj.org/docs/Arbour\_25\_October\_2006\\.pdf (accessed 13 July 2010) in Andrieu, Civilising Peacebuilding: Transitional Justice, Civil Society and the Liberal Paradigm, Security Dialogue 2010, p. 554.

Arriaza, L. and Roht-Arriaza, N. (2008). “Social Reconstruction as a Local Process”. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2(2), pp.152-172.

Casey, C. 2006. Remembering Genocide: Hypocrisy and the Violence of Local/Global Justice in Northern Nigeria’, in Hinton eds. Transitional Justice: Global Mechanisms and Local Realities after Genocide and Mass Violence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Drexler, E.F., The failure of International Justice in East Timor and Indonesia, in Hinton eds . (2010). Transitional justice : global mechanisms and local realities after genocide and mass violence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Hinton, A. 2010. Transitional justice : Global Mechanisms and Local Realities after Genocide and Mass Violence. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Huntington, S. 1991. “Democracy’s Third Wave”. Journal of Democracy, 2(2), pp.12-34.

Huntington, S. 1991. The third wave. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Kersten, M., 2012. The Power and Politics of Transitional Justice. [online] Justice in Conflict. Available at: http://justiceinconflict.org/2012/01/16/the-power-and-politics-of-transitional-justice/ [Accessed 3 March. 2015].

Minow, M. 1998. Between Vengeance and Forgiveness. Boston: Beacon Press.
Nagy, R. 2008. “Transitional Justice as Global Project: critical reflections”. Third World Quarterly, 29(2), pp.275-289.

Nye, J.N. 1990. “Soft Power”. Foreign Policy, No. 80, Twentieth Anniversary, pp. 153-171.

Nye, J.N. 2008. “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power”. The Annals of the American Academy, 616, pp. 94-109.

Renaut, A. 2005. Egalité et Discrimination [Equality and Discrimination]. Paris: Seuil. Sarkin, Jeremy, 1996.

Robertson, R. 1994. “Globalisation or Glocalisation?” Journal of International Communication, 1(1), pp.33-52.

Robins, S. 2015. “Mapping a Future for Transitional Justice by Learning from Its Past”. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 9(1), pp.181-190.

Roht-Arriaza, N. and Mariezcurrena, J. (2006). Transitional Justice in the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schabas, W. 2005. ‘Genocide Trials and the Gacaca Courts’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 3(4): 879–895.

Spence, J.E. 2010. ‘Realism and Idealism in South Africa’s Foreign Policy’, in Welsh D. & Spence J.E, (ed), Ending Apartheid. London: Pearson.

Stiglitz, J. 2002. Globalisation and its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.

Teitel, R. 2001. Transitional Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Teitel, R. 2002. Transitional Justice in a New Era. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(4), pp. 893-906.

Teitel, R. 2014. Globalising Transitional Justice. University Press Scholarship Online, Oxford Scholarship Online.

The Guardian, 2009. Nigeria accused of ignoring Sect warnings before Wave of Killings. [online] Retrievable at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/aug/02/nigeria-boko-haram-islamist-sect [Accessed 1 March 2015].

UN. 2004. United Nations and the Rule of Law. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/ruleoflaw/index.shtml [Accessed 1 March 2015].

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s