Reviewed by:

• The Global Impact and Legacy of Truth Commissions by ed. Jeremy Sarkin
• Paolo Caroli (bio)

About thirty-five years ago, the expression "transition to democracy" was first used among political scientists. Some years later, the term "transitional justice" was introduced in the legal field. Despite its very short life as a disciplinary field, transitional justice today is under attack and, according to some, it should perhaps be considered outdated.

This occurs, paradoxically, while the spectrum and the definition of transitional justice are expanding.¹ This refers both to the notion of "transition"—no longer just post-war or post-dictatorial—as well as to that of "justice," which today encompasses a diverse set of tools. Not just criminal law, amnesty, and truth commissions, but also reforms of police forces, the creation/demolition of monuments, memorials or museums, the establishment of commemorative days, or even the introduction of measures to contrast distributive inequities. Transitional justice has also changed its very ethos, from an alternative to a complementary tool with respect to criminal trials. Therefore, in the twenty-first century, transitional justice is no longer an alternative to impossible criminal prosecution—for de jure or de facto reasons—in societies undergoing a post-conflict or post-dictatorial political transition. It is no longer an exceptional instrument, but rather, it provides a series of mechanisms addressing structural problems related to economics or the environment, becoming "an enduring feature of political liberalization."² Suddenly, transitional justice is not an "exotic" experience; it is not considered a phenomenon circumscribed to, for example, distant African or South American countries. Transitional justice and its arsenal of mechanisms have evolved into a field of practical and political intervention in everyday society. As noted, transitional justice has become a "political project."³

Not surprisingly, the tools of transitional justice are nowadays invoked in consolidated Western democracies to deal with their colonial past, the discrimination against ethnic minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals, the (mis) representation of women⁴ and endemic corruption.⁵ Moreover, transitional justice scholars have been involved in the major [End Page 218] public debate around the current hot topic of the removal/contextualization of statues and monuments. Would it then be too odd to imagine, for instance, a truth and reconciliation commission for dealing with structural racism in the police forces in the USA? Probably not. Transitional justice has also matured and evolved to see the emergence of a real "establishment" of NGOs, ad hoc centers, academic projects, journals, tenures and conferences.⁶ In 2011 the UN Human Rights Council appointed transitional justice scholar, Pablo De Greiff, as first Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence. As de Greiff makes clear, criminal justice is but one goal in the major emancipatory framework of transitional justice, which aims at promoting a just social order.⁷

Simultaneously, as mentioned above, in this widespread climate of anxiety and pessimism around the future of human rights and justice for gross human rights violations, transitional justice is facing a crisis. After the creative euphoria of the so-called second phase,⁸ which began in the 1980s in response to amnesty laws and the impossibility of criminal prosecution, the most recent years have seen a growing nostalgia for retribution, particularly among victims' organizations, NGOs and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (ICtHR).⁹ These retributive claims are based on different considerations, which cannot be summarized here, and which go beyond the claim for punishment of the perpetrators. However, these considerations imply that the "quality" of the truth deriving from the criminal trial is far better than the one produced, for example, by truth commissions.¹⁰ Finally, transitional justice mechanisms are accused of failing to tackle the socio-economic roots of conflicts, in [End Page 219] particular those related to globalization and affected by Western capitalism. In fact, while "transitional justice and truth commissions are now a strand characterising political globalisation, an inevitable part of the international call and response characterising conflict and authoritarian aftermaths. (…) The question ultimately is whether transitional justice has become the conscience of transitional...

审核人：

• 真相委员会的全球影响力和传承，编着。杰里米·萨金（Jeremy Sarkin）
• 保罗·卡罗利（生物）

大约三十五年前，政治学家首次使用了“向民主过渡”一词。几年后，在法律领域引入了“过渡司法”一词。尽管过渡司法作为纪律学科的生命非常短暂，但今天的过渡司法正在受到攻击，有些人认为过渡司法已经过时了。

矛盾的是，这发生在过渡司法的范围和定义正在扩大的时候。¹这不仅涉及战后或独裁后的“过渡”概念，也涉及当今包含多种工具的“正义”概念。不仅是刑法，大赦和真相委员会，而且还包括警察部队的改革，纪念碑/纪念馆或博物馆的建造/拆除，纪念日的建立，甚至是采取措施来分配不平等现象。过渡时期司法也改变了它的精神，从刑事审判的替代工具到补充工具。因此，在二十一世纪，在经历了冲突后或独裁后政治过渡的社会中，出于法律上或事实上的原因，过渡司法不再是无法进行刑事起诉的替代选择。它不再是一种例外的工具，而是提供了一系列机制来解决与经济或环境有关的结构性问题，从而成为“政治自由化的持久特征”。^2个突然之间，过渡时期司法不是一种“异国情调”的经历。它不被认为是遥远的非洲或南美国家所固有的现象。过渡时期司法及其机制库已发展成为日常生活中的实践和政治干预领域。如前所述，过渡时期司法已成为“政治项目”。³

毫不奇怪，如今，在巩固的西方民主国家中使用过渡时期司法的工具来应对其殖民时期，对少数民族和LGBTQ +个人的歧视，妇女的（不当）代表⁴和地方性腐败。⁵此外，过渡时期司法学者也参与了该专业的研究[End Page 218]关于雕像和纪念碑的拆除/背景化的当前热门话题的公开辩论。那么，想象一下成立一个真相与和解委员会来应对美国警察中的结构性种族主义，是否太奇怪了？可能不是。过渡司法也已经成熟和发展，可以看到非政府组织，特设中心，学术项目，期刊，任期和会议的真正“建立”的出现。⁶ 2011年，联合国人权理事会任命过渡时期司法学者帕勃罗·德·格里夫（Pablo De Greiff）为第一位促进真相，正义，赔偿和保证不再发生的特别报告员。正如德·格里夫（De Greiff）所明确指出的那样，刑事司法只是过渡司法的主要解放框架中的一个目标，该框架旨在促进公正的社会秩序。⁷

同时，如上所述，在围绕人权和正义的未来，面对严重侵犯人权行为的广泛焦虑和悲观气氛中，过渡时期司法正面临危机。自从1980年代开始对大赦法和不可能进行刑事起诉的所谓第二阶段⁸的创造性兴高采烈之后，最近几年人们对报应的怀念越来越浓厚，特别是在受害者组织，非政府组织和非政府组织之间。美洲人权法院（ICtHR）。⁹这些报偿性索赔是基于不同的考虑，在此不做总结，并且超出了对肇事者的惩罚要求。但是，这些考虑意味着，来自刑事审判的真相的“质量”要比真相委员会所产生的真相要好得多。¹⁰最后，在[完第219页]中，过渡司法机制被指控未能解决冲突的社会经济根源。特别是那些与全球化有关并受西方资本主义影响的国家。实际上，尽管“过渡时期司法和真相委员会现在是政治全球化的特征，但国际电话和回应中却不可避免地体现了冲突和威权后果的特征。（……）最终，问题是过渡时期司法是否已成为过渡时期的良心。 ..