Reconciling order and justice? Dealing with the past in post-conflict states

This dissertation asks why so many states, in the aftermath of conflict, create institutions such as truth commissions and tribunals which are designed to hold perpetrators of past human rights atrocities accountable for their crimes. The explanation I develop analyzes the impact of two distinct factors. First, I explore the emergence and growth of a transnational network of human rights activists and how these actors influence the way political actors resolve conflicts. I argue that only with the increasing visibility of these activists are state actors more willing to commit resources to the establishment of institutions designed to hold perpetrators accountable. Second, I analyze the structural conditions under which political support for accountability mechanisms is likely to emerge. I argue that the method of conflict termination, through its effect on the distribution of power between warring parties, shapes how policymakers perceive the relationship between order and justice. When these values are perceived to be compatible, state actors are more likely to create and support institutions to hold perpetrators accountable. Wars terminated through negotiated settlements are more likely to evoke fears that the pursuit of justice threatens political stability. The empirical section of the dissertation tests the argument by examining the way political elites in Namibia, South Africa, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone dealt with human rights atrocities in the aftermath of civil conflict.