This article contributes to scholarship on power, agency and ownership in professional transitional justice. It explores and details the relationship between ‘professional’ agency arising from recognized expertise and ‘unprofessional’ voices relaying lived experiences, concerns and needs. I approach this relationship via a microperspective on the work of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2002-2004), specifically its work on women and sexual violence, which the commission was mandated to pay special attention to. Based on interviews and rich archival materials, I show how this work was driven by the notion that there was a right way of dealing with women and sexual violence. To avoid mistakes, commissioners and staff members demanded and relied on recognized expertise. This led to a marginalization of victims’ voices. I argue that, to some degree at least, such marginalization belongs to professional transitional justice and will persist despite improved victim participation. I N T R O D U C T I O N There are tensions between victim participation and other professional standards in the field of transitional justice. These tensions become most evident with regard to victims’ ‘active’ involvement in transitional justice projects: victim participation has become a well-established principle – yet victims only become participants via selection and mobilization procedures of which they are neither authors nor drivers. ‘[T]ransitional justice schemes involve active victim and survivor participation in their design, planning and execution [. . .]’. But victims do not choose how they become involved, nor do they directly shape the operations and products of transitional * Postdoctoral Researcher at SCRIPTS Cluster of Excellence, Freie Universität Berlin. Email: anne.menzel@ fu-berlin.de 1 Research for this article was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) as part of the research project ‘Redressing Sexual Violence in Truth Commissions. The Labelling of Women as Victims and its Social Repercussions’ at the Center for Conflict Studies, University of Marburg. I am grateful to Susanne Buckley-Zistel, Mariam Salehi and Eva Ottendörfer for comments and discussions during the research and writing process. All mistakes are my own. 1 Juan D Méndez, ‘Victims as Protagonists in Transitional Justice,’ International Journal of Transitional Justice, 10(1) (2016): 2. VC The Author(s) (2020). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email journals.permissions@oup.com 300 International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2020, 14, 300–319 doi: 10.1093/ijtj/ijaa011 Advance Access Publication Date: 12 June 2020 Article D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /ijtj/articl2/300/5856693 by W iliam & M ry Liraries user on 20 Agust 2020 justice. This is no coincidence. There are professional reasons for preferring a controlled involvement of victims and survivors. Bottom up and open ended forms of participation would be time intensive and unpredictable in their results. In consequence, it is unlikely that they would contribute to immediate project success such as the timely delivery of a state-of-the-art truth commission report. This is exactly the type of reasoning that has frustrated those scholars and activists who argue that transitional justice should be authored and driven by victims and survivors themselves, at least to a significant degree. And yet these tensions are in no way unique to transitional justice. They belong to a larger set of problems around power, agency and ownership that also haunt the related fields of peacebuilding and development aid/cooperation. It is a widely shared professional persuasion in these fields that projects must be owned by the people directly affected in order to be legitimate and effective. However, neither field usually involves such ‘local’ people ‘local’ being the most widely used classification at the level of designing, budgeting and actually running projects. Recent peacebuilding, development and transitional justice scholarship has drawn attention to the nonetheless existing agency of various categories of ‘local’ actors including victims/survivors of human rights violations. Yet their agency remains narrowly limited within projects because ‘locals’ rarely get the chance to be in charge. 2 See e.g. Habib Nassar, ‘Restricted Access’. Promises and Pitfalls of Victim Participation in Transitional Justice Mechanisms. A Comparative Approach (The Hague: Impunity Watch, 2017), https://www.impunitywatch. nl/docs/ResearchReport_Restricted_Access_Promises_Pitfalls_Victim_Participation_2017_eng.pdf (accessed 13 February 2020); Tazreena Sajjad, ‘Heavy Hands, Helping Hands, Holding Hands: The Politics of Exclusion in Victims’ Networks in Nepal,’ International Journal of Transitional Justice 10(1) (2016): 25-45; Paul Gready and Simon Robins, ‘From Transitional to Transformative Justice: A New Agenda for Practice,’ International Journal of Transitional Justice 8(3) (2014): 339-361. 3 On the professionalization of transitional justice, see e.g. Jelena Suboti c, ‘The Transformation of International Transitional Justice Advocacy’, International Journal of Transitional Justice 6(1) (2012): 106–

中文翻译：

---

正确处理的压力：塞拉利昂真相与和解委员会 (TRC) 工作中的专业知识和受害者的声音

本文对职业过渡司法中的权力、能动性和所有权的研究做出了贡献。它探讨并详细说明了由公认的专业知识产生的“专业”机构与传达生活经验、关注点和需求的“非专业”声音之间的关系。我通过对塞拉利昂真相与和解委员会（2002-2004）工作的微观视角来处理这种关系，特别是其在妇女和性暴力方面的工作，该委员会受命特别关注。基于采访和丰富的档案材料，我展示了这项工作是如何受到处理妇女和性暴力的正确方式这一观念的推动的。为了避免错误，委员和工作人员要求并依赖公认的专业知识。这导致受害者的声音被边缘化。我认为，至少在某种程度上，这种边缘化属于职业过渡司法，尽管受害者参与有所改善，但这种边缘化仍将持续存在。引言 受害者参与与过渡时期司法领域的其他专业标准之间存在紧张关系。这些紧张关系在受害者“积极”参与过渡时期司法项目时最为明显：受害者参与已成为一项既定的原则——但受害者只能通过选择和动员程序成为参与者，他们既不是发起者也不是推动者。'[T] 跨国司法计划涉及积极的受害者和幸存者参与其设计、规划和执行 [. . .]'。但是受害者不会选择他们如何参与，它们也不直接影响柏林自由大学 SCRIPTS 卓越集群的过渡*博士后研究员的操作和产品。电子邮件：anne.menzel@fu-berlin.de 1 本文的研究由 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) 资助，作为“纠正真相委员会中的性暴力”研究项目的一部分。马尔堡大学冲突研究中心的“女性受害者标签及其社会影响”。感谢 Susanne Buckley-Zistel、Mariam Salehi 和 Eva Ottendörfer 在研究和写作过程中的评论和讨论。所有的错误都是我自己的。1 Juan D Méndez，“过渡司法中的受害者作为主角”，《国际过渡司法杂志》，10(1) (2016)：2. VC The Author(s) (2020)。牛津大学出版社出版。版权所有。如需许可，请发送电子邮件至 journals.permissions@oup.com 300 International Journal of Transitional Justice, 2020, 14, 300–319 doi: 10.1093/ijtj/ijaa011 Advance Access Publication Date: 12 June 2020 Article D ow naded rom http/academ .p.com /ijtj/articl2/300/5856693 作者：W iliam & M ry Liraries 用户，2020 年 8 月 20 日正义。这并非巧合。选择受害者和幸存者有控制地参与是有专业原因的。自下而上和开放式的参与形式将是时间密集型的，并且其结果是不可预测的。因此，它们不太可能对项目的立竿见影的成功做出贡献，例如及时交付最新的真相委员会报告。这正是那些认为过渡司法应该由受害者和幸存者自己创作和推动的学者和活动家感到沮丧的推理类型，至少在很大程度上是这样。然而，这些紧张局势绝不是过渡时期司法独有的。它们属于一系列围绕权力、代理和所有权的问题，这些问题也困扰着建设和平和发展援助/合作的相关领域。这些领域普遍认同的专业观点是，项目必须由直接受影响的人所有，才能合法有效。然而，这两个领域通常都不会涉及这样的“本地”人，“本地”是在设计、预算和实际运行项目层面使用最广泛的分类。最近的和平建设，发展和过渡时期司法奖学金已经引起人们对包括侵犯人权行为受害者/幸存者在内的各类“当地”行为者的现有机构的关注。然而，他们的代理在项目中仍然受到严格限制，因为“当地人”很少有机会负责。2 参见例如 Habib Nassar，“受限访问”。受害者参与过渡司法机制的承诺和陷阱。比较方法（海牙：有罪不罚观察，2017 年），https://www.impunitywatch。nl/docs/ResearchReport_Restricted_Access_Promises_Pitfalls_Victim_Participation_2017_eng.pdf（2020 年 2 月 13 日访问）；Tazreena Sajjad，“重手、伸出援助之手、牵手：尼泊尔受害者网络中的排斥政治”，《国际过渡正义杂志》10(1) (2016)：25-45；Paul Gredy 和 Simon Robins，“从过渡到转型正义：实践的新议程”，国际过渡正义杂志 8(3) (2014)：339-361。3 关于过渡时期司法的专业化，参见 Jelena Subotic，“国际过渡时期司法倡导的转变”，国际过渡时期司法杂志 6(1) (2012)：106–