Transitional Justice and Human Rights

In recent discussions on human rights and post-conflict societies, the concept of transitional justice has increasingly drawn my attention. Encountering this subject through an academic lecture I attended in the past prompted me to reflect more deeply on its theoretical foundations and practical implications. What initially appeared to be a specialized legal framework revealed itself as a comprehensive approach to confronting past injustices while simultaneously shaping future political and legal orders. Motivated by this interest, and by the growing relevance of transitional justice in contemporary debates on accountability, reconciliation, and the rule of law, this paper seeks to examine the concept of transitional justice through a critical engagement with key scholarly works in the field.

Transitional justice is a multidimensional concept that refers to the totality of efforts undertaken by societies to confront the past, establish justice, and achieve lasting peace in the aftermath of periods marked by grave and systematic human rights violations. Unlike classical criminal justice, this approach does not focus solely on the punishment of individual perpetrators; rather, it also encompasses structural problems, institutional responsibility, and societal repair. In line with the United Nations’ definition, transitional justice includes all judicial and non-judicial mechanisms employed by societies emerging from conflict or repression to address the legacy of widespread past abuses.

This framework is clearly articulated in the work of Ruti G. Teitel, as demonstrated in the article examined in this study. Teitel conceptualizes transitional justice not as an exceptional or temporary response, but as an increasingly normalized and globally recurring normative paradigm within the contemporary international legal order. In her article Transitional Justice in a New Era, she emphasizes that transitional justice no longer functions merely as a mechanism for responding to past violations, but has evolved into a tool that establishes the legitimacy of new political orders and redefines the role of law.

The relationship between transitional justice and human rights constitutes the normative foundation of the concept. The persistence of impunity for human rights violations not only undermines the rule of law, but also severely damages trust between the state and society. As Teitel demonstrates in her article published in the Harvard Human Rights Journal, which is also examined in this study, the process that began with the Nuremberg Trials following the Second World War marked a critical turning point. This development introduced individual criminal responsibility into international law and established the principle that human rights violations could no longer be concealed behind the shield of state sovereignty. This historical rupture laid the groundwork for the structural relationship between transitional justice and international human rights law.

Among the core components of transitional justice are truth-seeking initiatives, criminal prosecutions, reparations and compensation mechanisms, and institutional reforms. Truth-seeking processes, particularly through truth commissions, play a crucial role in documenting past violations and ensuring their public acknowledgment. In the works examined in this study, Teitel argues that these processes serve not merely to create historical records, but also to reveal the symbolic and transformative role of law during periods of transition. Public recognition of truth is therefore central to dismantling cultures of denial and impunity.

While criminal prosecutions remain one of the most visible elements of transitional justice, Teitel consistently stresses that they are insufficient on their own. In the articles examined, she notes that approaches relying exclusively on punishment may, in certain contexts, exacerbate political fragility and hinder societal reconciliation. For this reason, transitional justice must strike a balance between the normative demands of law and the practical need for political stability. This search for balance highlights the inherent tension between law and politics that lies at the core of transitional justice processes.

At this point, the importance of a victim-centered approach becomes even more apparent. As demonstrated in the works examined by Teitel, the legitimacy of transitional justice depends not only on compliance with international norms, but also on the recognition and repair of the harms suffered by victims. When victims’ participation in these processes remains limited, justice mechanisms may function effectively in legal terms while failing to resonate at the societal level. Accordingly, transitional justice should be understood not merely as a state-centered endeavor, but as a broader process of social transformation.

Transitional justice constitutes a fundamental tool for confronting the legacy of human rights violations and contributing to the construction of lasting peace. When assessed in light of the works examined by Teitel, transitional justice emerges not only as a means of addressing past injustices, but also as a process that entails the redefinition of law and political order. From an academic perspective, the success of transitional justice depends on its adoption of an inclusive, victim-centered, and context-specific approach. Processes that embody these characteristics contribute both to the institutionalization of human rights and to the construction of a more just and democratic future.

In this respect, transitional justice should not be confined to a theoretical framework or treated as an exceptional response limited to post-conflict moments. Rather, its broader and more systematic implementation should be encouraged as a central component of efforts to strengthen human rights protection, reinforce the rule of law, and prevent the recurrence of large-scale violations. Expanding the practical application of transitional justice mechanisms in diverse contexts holds the potential not only to address past injustices more effectively, but also to contribute meaningfully to the development of resilient, accountable, and inclusive political and legal systems.

References

          Teitel, R. G. (2002). Transitional justice in a new era. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(4), 893–906.

             Teitel, R. G. (2003). Transitional justice genealogy. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 16, 69–94.

             United Nations General Assembly. (2004). The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies (S/2004/616).

         United Nations Human Rights Council. (2019). Transitional justice and sustaining peace (A/HRC/RES/42/17).