justice mechanisms have become ever more embedded in the peacebuilding landscape, there has also been a judicialization of transitional justice responses. Yet, clearly courts cannot and will not address all accountability needs in a conflict-affected country, nor are they always well-suited to do so. Judicial processes require relatively clear definitions of who constitutes a victim and/or a perpetrator, while in many situations, some of which are discussed in this volume, the same individual might be a victim, an ex-combatant, or a perpetrator, either at the same time or at different points in time. How will a given person be treated in a judicial process, or in a reparations program? What criteria can be applied to delineate boundaries between these— often opposite—roles? And what happens when the majority of the population might be considered victims, as in Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Cambodia? The legal categories and operational definitions that we apply in transitional justice and peacebuilding have serious implications because they affect access to certain benefits or programs, but also because they may shape the ways that past abuse is addressed in a society.
Further, how are these definitions being appropriated and reinterpreted by social actors such as victims’ organizations and victims’ movements? How do these actors relate to the processes and institutions developed to implement transitional justice, and do they take part in a redefinition of legal and operational categories? Empirical research on the implications of definitions concerning the subjects or actors of transitional justice could illuminate these nuances.
The International Reproduction of Transitional Justice
Transitional justice has become an industry, with institutions and service providers that operate globally and which can shape transitional justice and peacebuilding policy and programming agendas in numerous countries. Has the spread of transitional justice resulted from a learning or demonstration effect across borders, and who are the actors involved? What mechanisms or fora are used to promote transitional justice practices? There is a noticeable increase in numbers of transitional justice experts and advisory services, some more influential than others. Who are these international actors; how might we scrutinize their influence without jeopardizing their quest for accountability? In a field that has grown rapidly in size, political influence, and finance in the past two decades, a serious examination of the differences between analysis and advocacy and the roles ofadvocates and scholars is necessary. So, too, is an examination of the relationship among local, national, and international transitional justice practitioners.
Traditional Justice: Practices and Appearances
Greater attention has been paid to traditional practices of accountability with the rise of transitional justice globally, and they are increasingly well-documented. However, there is more to be examined regarding the way these practices are applied in practice and the consequences they have for local communities. As the chapter by Nagy in this volume demonstrates, some of these practices may risk cooptation by external actors, whether international actors or the state, or may entail coercion of victims and/or perpetrators. More empirical studies are needed to document the use of traditional practices dealing with accountability, forgiveness, and reintegration at the local level, as well as the relation of these practices to formal systems of justice.
The studies in this volume have examined the interaction between two specific aspects of transitional justice and peacebuilding: the promotion of victim-centered approaches to justice and short-term DDR processes, and longer-term security and reintegration challenges. Our focus was based on the recognition that, while these aspects are often in tension with one another, they also increasingly involve overlapping