The vertical conceptualization of transitional justice against the backdrop of an increasingly complex political economy of transitional states

Abstract

The field of transitional justice has been routinely described as contentious or at a cross-roads. Largely pioneered by American political scientists in the mid-1980s, the field has been struggling to transcend the elitist boundaries within which it was initially conceived. The traditional conceptualizations of transitional justice as top-down, bottom-up or hybrid suggest a degree of omnipotence that the field has never practically possessed. It is the nation-state that sets the tone of transitional justice interventions, as well as any other international interventions – bar a few exceptions. The state erects barriers of entry which need to be carefully studied by the internationalists before embarking on a transitional justice intervention. Outside of the most asymmetrical scenarios, the state further regulates the scope and scale of such international interventions. Yet, the basic conditions of the political life of transitional states have been analytically sidelined in favour of transitional justice measures laden with expectations that they invariably fail to deliver. On the ground, transitional justice efforts routinely amplify the pre-existing characteristics of transitional societies. That is, in authoritarian states, it is likely to take a top-down form; in more liberal states, it will be more welcoming of grassroots initiatives. The complexity of Cambodia’s transition from war to relative stability will be used to illustrate transitional justice efforts’ lack of assertive power when facing state’s assertions of sovereignty.