Decolonizing Transitional Justice: Pathways Toward a Transformative Framework

---

Abstract

Transitional Justice (TJ) refers to a set of practices and institutions designed to address histories of violence, repression, and human rights abuses, often implemented in societies emerging from conflict or authoritarianism (Brinton Lykes & Murphy, 2023). TJ traditionally includes criminal prosecutions, truth commissions, reparations, and institutional reforms to facilitate democratic governance and social healing. However, traditional TJ models, largely rooted in Western paradigms, often employ a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, potentially overlooking societies' complex histories and cultural specificities, especially in postcolonial and Indigenous contexts. This approach can inadvertently reinforce colonial legacies, assuming liberal democratic governance as the ultimate goal, disregarding local systems and values that might not align with this trajectory (Novic, 2021).

In recent years, the TJ field has seen notable shifts toward community-led, bottom-up approaches that emphasize local ownership and culturally resonant forms of justice. Yet, these improvements remain insufficient for achieving the deep transformation needed to address the power imbalances created and sustained by colonialism (Brinton Lykes & Murphy, 2023). Decolonizing TJ seeks to dismantle colonial power structures, ensuring that justice processes empower affected communities rather than impose foreign ideals. By centering local knowledge and addressing historical injustices, this approach builds pathways towards meaningful reconciliation and a lasting transformation.

Photo Cr: Unsplash

Limitations of Liberal Transitional Justice Frameworks

In recent years, Transitional Justice has increasingly been applied in both postcolonial and settler-colonial contexts to address injustices tied to colonial legacies, such as economic disparities, authoritarian practices, and identity-based discrimination. In post-conflict settings like Rwanda and Kenya, TJ mechanisms - such as criminal prosecutions, truth-seeking efforts, reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence - have been used to address historical grievances and promote political and social reforms (Park, 2020). Meanwhile, in settler-colonial countries like Canada, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, reparations, and official apologies have aimed to confront injustices against Indigenous communities, with some positive outcomes in terms of acknowledgment and healing (Matsunaga, 2016).

However, TJ processes in both postcolonial and settler-colonial contexts often remain constrained by their reliance on liberal democratic frameworks. This approach can neglect deeper historical injustices related to colonialism, particularly when applied in contexts where liberalization is itself a colonial legacy (Yusuf, 2018). The focus on liberalization and state authority can limit recognition of Indigenous governance systems, positioning them as secondary to Western legal and political norms. Even when Indigenous or customary practices are included, they are frequently reshaped to fit within existing TJ frameworks, effectively diluting Indigenous justice traditions. As a result, TJ models may not only fall short of dismantling colonial legacies but may also perpetuate existing antagonisms, reinforcing a trajectory toward liberal democracy that may undermine alternative justice systems and foster ongoing tensions (Park, 2020).

Challenges in Conventional Transitional Justice Approaches

Critics of traditional TJ posit that it often fails to consider the historical and structural injustices rooted in colonialism, instead focusing on immediate post-conflict redress (Durdiyeva, 2023). Some argue that TJ often legitimizes settler states by framing the liberal state as the primary agent of justice, which distances the process from its colonial past and can exacerbate tensions within affected communities. While some local or customary practices are incorporated, they are typically adapted to fit Western legal paradigms, subordinating Indigenous epistemologies rather than recognizing them as central to the justice process (Brinton Lykes & Murphy, 2023).

Moreover, the assumption that TJ should culminate in a liberal democratic society narrows the possibilities for envisioning alternative justice models. Indigenous scholars advocate for a reimagined TJ that prioritizes Indigenous knowledge systems and community-centred restorative practices. This would allow Indigenous groups to define justice based on their cultural values and needs, ultimately fostering a more inclusive and effective approach to reconciliation (Park, 2020).

Pathways to a Decolonized Transitional Justice

To realize a truly decolonial approach to TJ, it is crucial to rethink its foundational goals and mechanisms, integrating structural and transformative approaches that fully address colonial legacies. The following pathways suggest strategies for reimagining TJ processes in postcolonial and settler-colonial contexts.

1)     Prioritize structural/historical justice
TJ must address colonial-era injustices that continue to shape systemic inequalities, like land dispossession and resource exploitation (Yusuf, 2018). This includes implementing reparative frameworks that restore access to cultural heritage, reclaim lands, and partner with communities to address the root causes of today’s inequalities. Programs should work toward long-term economic and social justice as central TJ goals.

2)     Expand the temporal scope to recognize intergenerational trauma
To effectively address the legacies of colonial violence, TJ mechanisms should cover abuses from colonial times to the present, including the intergenerational trauma they perpetuate. This approach emphasizes multigenerational reparations and community-based healing initiatives that respect affected communities’ timelines, fostering enduring reconciliation.

3)     Integrate Indigenous knowledge and restorative practices
Centering Indigenous justice practices within TJ means recognizing them as independent systems rather than adapting them to Western frameworks (Park, 2020). Restorative justice methods, focusing on community healing, should replace state-led approaches with locally-led models that reflect community needs, fostering relevance and respect for local values.

4)     Redefine success to reflect local priorities

Success in transitional justice should move beyond standardized legal outcomes like convictions and institutional reforms, embracing metrics rooted in the socio-cultural priorities of affected communities. Shifting TJ’s focus to measures that value restored trust, intergenerational resilience, and sustainable social structures allows for a more responsive and impactful approach, addressing deeper layers of harm and fostering justice that endures within the local context.

Conclusion

In conclusion, decolonizing transitional justice is essential for addressing the enduring impacts of colonialism and fostering genuine reconciliation in postcolonial and settler-colonial contexts. By prioritizing structural and historical justice, expanding the temporal scope to encompass intergenerational trauma, integrating Indigenous knowledge, and redefining success to reflect local priorities, TJ can evolve into a transformative framework that truly helps societies move away from conflict. A decolonial TJ model dismantles colonial frameworks, emphasizing an inclusive, community-driven form of justice that resonates with the diverse experiences and needs of Indigenous and formerly colonized communities. As TJ continues to evolve, its success will depend on its ability to transcend liberal paradigms, offering transformative justice that honors the histories and aspirations of all those it serves.

References

• Brinton Lykes, M., & Murphy, C. (2023). Decolonizing Transitional Justice: Soft, Radical or Beyond Reform. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijad030

• Durdiyeva, S. (2023). Frient - Transitional Justice. A Call for Decolonisation. Frient.de. https://www.frient.de/artikel/transitional-justice-a-call-for-decolonisation-beyond-postcolonial-condition

• Matsunaga, J. (2016). Two faces of transitional justice: Theorizing the incommensurability of transitional justice and decolonization in Canada. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 5(1). https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/26530

• Novic, E. (2021, December 22). Transitional Justice to Address Colonial Legacies: Decolonizing Transitional Justice First? Society for Cultural Anthropology. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/transitional-justice-to-address-colonial-legacies-decolonizing-transitional-justice-first

• Park, A. S. J. (2020). Settler Colonialism, Decolonization and Radicalizing Transitional Justice. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 14(2), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijaa006

• Yusuf, H. O. (2018). Colonialism and the Dilemmas of Transitional Justice in Nigeria. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 12(2), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijy006