The standardisation of transitional justice
| Author | Line Engbo Gissel |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221120980 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221120980
European Journal of
International Relations
2022, Vol. 28(4) 859 –884
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13540661221120980
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
The standardisation of
transitional justice
Line Engbo Gissel
Roskilde University, Denmark
Abstract
This article argues that transitional justice (TJ) has recently been standardised: There is
now a two-tiered global standard of TJ which structures policy responses and academic
thinking. TJ comprises criminal justice, truth-telling, reparation and institutional
reform – four core elements in a ‘comprehensive’ approach. The standard involves
specifications for design, procedure and performance and draws on a selection of
seemingly unambiguous international legal norms. Paradoxically, it claims to eschew a
one-size-fits-all formula, while promoting uniformity in diverse contexts. It is moreover
unclear whether its implementation generates beneficial effects in society. Building
on existing research on international standardisation as an international political and
sociological phenomenon, the article analyses the recently developed TJ standard and
presents the first account of the process of TJ standardisation. It demonstrates how
processes of ‘generification’ and ‘localisation’ make practices transferable and establish
the means to facilitate their replication in and across different contexts and settings.
These processes are illustrated drawing on existing scholarship from around the world
that highlights the acceptance and contestation of and resistance to the standard. After
analysing these processes, the article discusses the implications of TJ standardisation for
societies, scholarship and global governance.
Keywords
Transitional justice, international standardisation, global governance, normalisation,
human rights, international law
Corresponding author:
Line Engbo Gissel, Roskilde University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
Email: lgissel@ruc.dk
1120980EJT0010.1177/13540661221120980European Journal of International RelationsGissel
research-article2022
Article
860 European Journal of International Relations 28(4)
Introduction
This article explores the international standardisation of transitional justice (TJ), a field
of practice and scholarship focusing on institutional justice responses to past violence,
such as criminal trials, truth commissions, reparations, reform, commissions of inquiry,
purges, vetting, amnesty, traditional rituals, memorials, curriculum development and art.
A ‘global project’ (Nagy, 2008), it has been implemented in at least 145 countries since
1970.1 TJ is commonly traced back to the post-Second World War Nuremberg and Tokyo
tribunals, but became a self-conscious field in the late 1980s and early 1990s following
democratic transitions in Latin America (Arthur, 2009; Sharp, 2018). Since the late
1990s, it has been theorised as a distinct field (Bell, 2009; Elster, 2004; Minow, 1998;
Teitel, 2000). More recently, it has been internationally standardised. There is now a
global TJ standard, described variously as a ‘model’, ‘blueprint’ and ‘toolkit’, which
structures both policy responses and academic thinking. The standard involves two tiers
of practice (essential and non-essential), the construction of ‘best practice’, specifica-
tions for design, procedure and performance, and an assemblage of seemingly unam-
biguous international legal norms.
The standardisation of TJ is puzzling because it consolidates existing practices that
have so far been unable to convincingly demonstrate a beneficial effect on transitional
societies. Standards define ‘solutions for matching problems’, often with reference to
effectiveness, efficiency and optimal outcomes (De Vries, 2015: 22). They are voluntar-
ily adopted and implemented for strategic and functional reasons. In the field of TJ,
however, there is ‘an abundance of evidence which scrutinizes [TJ’s] real-world impacts
unfavorably’ (Macdonald, 2019: 247). In-depth case studies and small-N comparisons
struggle to find beneficial effects (Arnould, 2015; Encarnación, 2012), while large-N
analyses generate contrasting results (compare David, 2017b; Mendeloff, 2009). TJ was
seemingly standardised independently of its effects. Moreover, the TJ standard devel-
oped from a heterogeneous field responding to different transitions and types of injustice
as well as coterminous calls to reject a one-size-fits-all approach. Paradoxically, stand-
ardisers emphasise the importance of context (Duthie and Seils, 2017; UN Security
Council, 2004), while developing and disseminating a set of generic and universal
‘tools’. As victims need a diversity of memory processes to overcome trauma (Hamber
and Wilson, 2002), it is unclear how and why survivors, activists and policymakers in
very different contexts often come to accept standardised TJ as their preferred expres-
sions of TJ.
Scholars have noted and sometimes problematised the TJ model (David, 2017a, 2020;
Jones and Lühe, 2021; Lambourne, 2014; Macdonald, 2019; Sharp, 2018; Subotic,
2012), but the process of TJ standardisation has not been researched in its own right. This
article begins such an endeavour by applying relevant insights on international standardi-
sation to the field of TJ and analysing the TJ standard and its emergence. It has five sec-
tions and a conclusion. The first section provides the state of the art of international
standardisation, a sub-field in international relations and sociology. The second section
analyses the TJ standard by describing its structure, composition and features. Thereafter
the article offers a first account of TJ standardisation by analysing the generification and
localisation of TJ. The fourth section provides illustrations of localisation drawing on
To continue reading
Request your trial