Justiça transitória e construção de
Instituições democráticas: uma
investigação de trajetória
Chandra Lekha Sriram, Professor of
International Law and International
Relations, and co-Director, Centre on
Human Rights in Conflict, University of
East London
c.sriram@uel.ac.uk
www.uel.ac.uk/chrc
The project and question
• Project title: The Impact of Transitional Justice
Measures on Democratic Institution-building
• Question: What impact, if any, do transitional
justice measures have on democracy?
Project Structure
• Co-directors: CL Sriram and A Mihr (University of
Utrecht, Netherlands), funded by ESRC (UK) and
NWO (Neth). Plus two postdoctoral researchers
• Eight countries in four regions: Brazil, Chile, East
Germany, Hungary, Sierra Leone, Uganda, South
Korea, Japan
The impetus: Policy concerns and a
gap in knowledge
• Big claims get made: transitional justice (TJ)
measures improve democracy and human rights
records
• Why we care: policy concerns
– Value of transitional justice in itself
– Expectations of TJ for a range of goals, and huge
domestic and international investment
– Huge investment in democracy promotion
The impetus: Policy concerns and a
gap in knowledge
• What do we know and what do we not know? The gap in
knowledge
• Many single-country case studies suggest a range of
lessons about TJ, but few trace effects on democracy in
detail
• Quantitative studies (large-N) suggest contradictory
effects of TJ measures on democracy and human rights,
and offer little insight about process
Transitional justice: key elements
(for the project)
• Amnesties
• Trials
• Commissions of Inquiry
• Vetting
• Restorative measures
Democracy: Key elements
(for the project)
• Rule of law
• Political society
• Civil society
• Security sector
So why these countries?
• Experienced ‘transition’ from conflict or
authoritarian rule (or both) 10 or more years ago
• At least one state-directed TJ mechanism
• Geographic, past abuse, and ‘geopolitical time’
diversity
The big challenge:
Can you ‘prove’ causation?
• Correlation vs causation
• Two big and complex activities (TJ and democracy)
• Long timeframe
• Very different precursors (endogenous variables)
• Many intervening variables
Instead of ‘proving’ causation
• Contributing elements
• Harmful elements
• Altering elements
• Ultimately, the focus for us is identifying whether there
are pathways of influence (via process-tracing)
So then what are the questions?
• The core questions become:
– Can we see pathways by which specific transitional
justice measures contribute to specific elements of
democracy?
– And if so how can we articulate them and account
for alternate explanations?
So what might this look like?
(expectations from the literature)
• Expectation 1: The TJ mechanism trials
contributes to democracy by contributing to
improved rule of law
• HOW? Direct training and improvement of
capacity; demonstration effect; removal of
elements of impunity and persons who benefit
– Sierra Leone: does it really?
So what might this look like?
• Expectation 2: Amnesties can contribute to or
undermine democracy by affecting legitimacy of
new regime.
• HOW? Inclusion of former enemies, enabling
political participation.
– Brazil, Sierra Leone: Does it really?
So what might this look like?
• Expectation 3: Vetting can contribute to democratic
legitimacy by excluding those with abusive records
• HOW? Removal may improve political society (eg
political competition), security sector, judicial
independence
• Hungary, El Salvador: But does it really?
So what might this look like?
• Expectation 4: Restorative measures (reparation,
apology, memorial etc) can contribute to
democratic functioning
• HOW? Legitimacy of state; citizen participation
increases in political and civil society
• Brazil, Chile: But do they really?
What might this look like?
• Expectation 5: Commissions of inquiry contribute to
democratic legitimacy and promote rule of law and
security sector reform
• HOW: Legitimacy via state-sponsored acknowledgment
of the past; reform via recommendations
– Chile, Sierra Leone: But do they really? What does this mean
for the new Brazilian commission?
Conducting the investigation:
Process-tracing
• Requires understanding pre-transition, and
transition context and how it shapes transition
– Eg Prior state of democracy, for example a
conflict-affected state with relatively
independent judiciary (Colombia)
– Eg geopolitical constraints
– Eg external support to mechanisms/transition
Conducting the investigation:
Process-tracing
• Requires understanding intervening variables and events
– Transitional politics and events
• Eg trials are used as source of political leverage over enemies or
otherwise affect democratic politics: Uganda, Kenya, Lebanon
– Institutional design
• Eg Truth commission with weak mandate
• Eg limited domestic trials
• Eg amnesty design
So what next?
• Qualitative research by all four researchers across
the eight countries over the next two years
• Interviewing lawyers, judges, politicians, civil society
actors, international NGOs, and international
officials
• Co-researchers Anja Mihr and Filipa Raimundo will
visit Brazil later this year and next year
Discussion
• Happy to answer any and all questions on the
project and research questions but…
• I would particularly like to know your views
about the topic, in general and for Brazil
– Are these the right questions, in your mind?
– Do you think they suit the challenges in Brazil?