Conflict resolution professionals sometimes differ from human rights professionals about the best approaches to transitional justice, particularly with regard to the scope, conditions, and timing of possible amnesties from prosecution for perpetrators of war crimes and human rights abuses. When human rights and conflict resolution professionals work at cross‐purposes, they may work less effectively to end conflict, abuses, and crimes, and to implement peace accords. A consensus among conflict resolution and human rights scholars about which legal norms should govern post‐conflict amnesty programs appears to be developing. Against this emerging legal framework, human rights and conflict resolution professionals should, I argue, develop processes for working together more effectively in the design and implementation of context‐sensitive approaches to transitional justice. These process principles should address the entire conflict period, from escalation through resolution to post‐conflict reconstruction. In this article, I describe a tentative, general framework for coordinating the development of transitional justice programs. This proposed framework is intended to stimulate and guide discussion of these issues among conflict resolution and human rights professionals and scholars.

中文翻译：

---

协调过渡司法

解决冲突的专业人员有时与人权专业人员在过渡司法的最佳方法方面有所不同，特别是在对战争罪和侵犯人权行为者提起起诉的可能赦免的范围，条件和时机方面。当人权和解决冲突的专业人员跨领域工作时，他们为结束冲突，虐待和犯罪以及执行和平协定而可能工作效率降低。冲突解决方案和人权学者之间就哪种法律准则应适用于冲突后大赦方案的共识似乎正在形成。我认为，在这个新兴的法律框架下，人权和解决冲突的专家应该 开发流程，以便在设计和实施上下文相关的过渡司法方法时更有效地合作。这些流程原则应解决从升级到解决再到冲突后重建的整个冲突时期。在本文中，我描述了一个临时的，通用的框架，用于协调过渡时期司法计划的发展。拟议的框架旨在激发和指导冲突解决以及人权专业人士和学者对这些问题的讨论。