Promoting Accountability, Undermining Peace? Naming and Shaming in Transitional Justice Processes

Abstract

One of the most significant contemporary international human rights developments is the pursuit of what has become known as transitional justice.¹ Transitional justice is a catchall term that refers to a variety of measures enacted in the context of political transitions that are designed to provide justice for gross human rights violations.² Ideally, there is no need for naming and shaming in these contexts. Rather, individual suspects are arrested and, if found guilty, punished for their abuses. However, in the context of fragile political transitions, this is often not feasible. Although it may be morally and legally appropriate to punish perpetrators of human rights abuses and attend to the needs of victims, the continued power or usefulness of perpetrators and the pervasiveness of violence may make it impossible to prosecute those responsible or to adequately repair victims. Perpetrators may remain powerful and able to disrupt nascent peace processes or democratization efforts. Domestic courts may lack the capacity to conduct trials, or may be themselves complicit in abuses. In these contexts, other forms of transitional justice might be established in order to achieve some form of accountability.