Beyond the Binary of Exogenous and Endogenous Transitions: International Actors and Transitional Justice in Georgia

  • Anna Dolidze
Part of the Asan-Palgrave Macmillan Series book series (APMS)


“Democratic transitional justice is almost as old as democracy itself,” points out Jon Elster.1 Examples of transitional justice are available from history as early as ancient Greece.2 Elster distinguishes between exogenous and endogenous transitional justice, “the process of transitional justice may be either initiated by the new regime or carried out under the supervision of foreign power.”3 The distinction between exogenous and endogenous transitional justice processes is now widely accepted in transitional justice scholarship.4 For example, Peter Boettke and Christopher Coyne draw on this binary. In defining the terms used in the article Political Economy of Forgiveness, they assert that endogenous transitional justice implies “the administration of justice by indigenous citizens within the transition country.”5 Exogenous transitional justice involves “external, international actors in the administration of justice.”6


Prime Minister Transitional Justice Endogenous Transition General Assembly Resolution European Neighbourhood Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jon Elster, Closing the books: Transitional justice in historical perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 4.
    Marek M. Kaminski, Monika Nalepa, and Barry O’Neill, “Normative and Strategic Aspects of Transitional Justice,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 50, no. 3 (2006): 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 5.
    Petter Boettke and Cristopher J. Coyne, “Political Economy of Forgiveness,” in Markets, Morals, & Religion, ed. Jonathan B. Imber (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2008), 209.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    See Nicholas Onuf, Do Rules Say What They Do-from Ordinary Language to International Law, 26 Harv. Int’l L.J. 385 (1985).Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Marek M. Kaminski and Monika Nalepa, “Judging Transitional Justice: a New Criterion for Evaluating Truth Revelation Procedures,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 50, no. 3 (2006): 386.Google Scholar
  6. 12.
    Ige F. Dekker and Ramses A. Wessel, “Governance by International Organizations: Rethinking the Normative Force of International Decisions,” in Governance and International Legal Theory, eds. I.F. Dekker and W. Werner (Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004), 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 13.
    Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State (Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2007).Google Scholar
  8. 15.
    Dominique Carreau, Thiébaut Flory, and Patrick Juillard, “Chronique de Droit international e conomique,” 23 Annuaire français de droit international 648 (1977);Google Scholar
  9. and Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern, Corporations in and under International Law, no. 6 (Cambridge, UK: Grotius Publications Ltd., 1987).Google Scholar
  10. 16.
    See, e.g. Rosalyn Higgins, The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations (London: Oxford University Press, 1963);Google Scholar
  11. Obed Y. Asamoah, The Legal Significance of the Declarations of the General Assembly of the United Nations (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967);Google Scholar
  12. Richard A. Falk, On the Quasi-Legislative Competence of the General Assembly, 60 Am. J. Int’l L. 782 (1966);Google Scholar
  13. and Bernard Victor Aloysius Röling, Volkenrecht en Vrede [International Law and Peace] (Deventer: Kluwer, 1985).Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    International Court of Justice (ICJ), Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion July 8, 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, 254–255.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, vol. 626 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 20.
    John R. Searl, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 21.
    Nicholas Onuf, Do Rules Say What They Do-from Ordinary Language to International Law, 26 Harv. Int’l L.J. 385, 400 (1985).Google Scholar
  18. 24.
    Dekker and Wessel, “Governance,” 216; See also Ramses A.Wessel, Informal International Law-Making as a New Form of World Legislation?, 8 Int’l Org. L. Rev. 253 (2011);Google Scholar
  19. Joost Pauwelyn, Ramses A. Wessel, and Jan Wouters, “The Exercise of Public Authority through Informal International Lawmaking: An Accountability Issue?” Jean Monnet working paper 2011, no. 6 (2011): 1–42; Ayelet Berman and Ramses A. Wessel, “The International Legal Status of Informal International Law-making Bodies: Consequences for Accountability,” in, eds. Joost Pauwelyn, Ramses A. Wessel and Jan Wouters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 35–62.Google Scholar
  20. 25.
    For details, see Martin Müller, “Public Opinion Toward the European Union in Georgia,” Post-Soviet Affairs 27, no. 1 (2011): 64–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 36.
    See, e.g., European Union, Common Aviation Area Agreement Between European Union and its Member States and Georgia (Brussels, December 2, 2010).Google Scholar
  22. 37.
    European Union, Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuff (Brussels, April 1, 2012).Google Scholar
  23. 39.
    European Union, European Commission Memo: EU-Georgia Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (Brussels, July 22, 2013),–705_en.htm.Google Scholar
  24. 43.
    Anna Dolidze, “The Rise and Fall of a Color Revolution: the Case of Georgia,” in The Democratic Disconnect: Citizenship and Accountability in the Transatlantic Community, Seyla Benhabib et al. (Washington DC: Transatlantic Academy, 2014), 65.Google Scholar
  25. 45.
    European Union Courts of Human Rights, Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia (Strasbourg, April 26, 2011), App. No. 25091/07, para. 276,–104636#{“itemid”:[“001–104636”]}.Google Scholar
  26. 66.
    Thomas Hammarberg, Georgia in Transition: Report on the Human Rights Dimension: Background, Steps Taken, and Remaining Challenges (Tbilisi: EU Special Adviser on Constitutional and Legal Reform and Human Rights in Georgia, September 2013), Scholar
  27. 67.
    European Union, Statement by the Spokesperson of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the Abuse of Prisoners in Georgian Penitentiary System (Brussels, September 20, 2012), Scholar
  28. 69.
    European Union, Remarks by European Union High Representative/Vice President Ashton at the End of Her Visit to Georgia, (Brussels, November 26, 2012), Scholar
  29. 72.
    European Union, European Commission Memo: Statements by the Spokespersons of High Representative Catherine Ashton Commissioner Štefan Füle on the Arrests of Former Prime Minister of Georgia (Brussels, May 22, 2013),–452_en.htm.Google Scholar
  30. 74.
    European Union, Statement by Commissioner Štefan Füle following his meeting with Foreign Minister of Georgia, Maia Panjikidze, (Brussels, April 24, 2013),–379_en.htm.Google Scholar
  31. 80.
    European Commission, Conference: “Georgia’s European Way: EU’s Eastern European partners – Towards the Vilnius Summit”, SPEECH/13/635 (Georgia, July 12, 2013), ), 2.Google Scholar
  32. 84.
    European Commission, Statement by Commissioner Stefan Fule Following his Meeting with MR Konstantin Kublashvili, the Chairman of the Georgian Supreme CourtI, (Brussels, March 27, 2013),–295_en.htm.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Baek Buhm-Suk and Ruti G. Teitel 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Dolidze

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations