One-sided truth commissions and effects on public support and reconciliation
Many post-conflict and post-transition countries use truth commissions to address the legacy of the past. However, truth commissions are products of the political context and often reflect the power balance at the time of creation. More than half of truth commissions show some form of one-sided trea...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2024
|
| In: |
Human rights review
Year: 2024, Volume: 25, Issue: 4, Pages: 397-425 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
| Summary: | Many post-conflict and post-transition countries use truth commissions to address the legacy of the past. However, truth commissions are products of the political context and often reflect the power balance at the time of creation. More than half of truth commissions show some form of one-sided treatment. To what extent does this matter? Has the public priced in the political circumstances or does a one-sided truth commission damage expectations of peace? Using an experiment to deal with the endogeneity between the truth commission and context, I examine this question in an original survey in Northern Ireland. The findings show that one-sided processes significantly reduce support for the institution and the perceived prospects of reconciliation, with some support for a normative heuristic of fairness, while mechanisms of ethnic identity and victimization do not explain the differences. The research demonstrates the significance of implementing transitional justice in a just and equitable way. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 421-425 |
| Physical Description: | Illustrationen |
| ISSN: | 1874-6306 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s12142-024-00731-w |
