The project and question

1. Justiçatransitória e construção de Instituiçõesdemocráticas: umainvestigação de trajetória Chandra Lekha Sriram, Professor of International Law and International Relations, and co-Director, Centre on Human Rights in Conflict, University of East London c.sriram@uel.ac.uk www.uel.ac.uk/chrc

2. The project and question • Project title: The Impact of Transitional Justice Measures on Democratic Institution-building • Question: What impact, if any, do transitional justice measures have on democracy?

3. Project Structure • Co-directors: CL Sriram and A Mihr (University of Utrecht, Netherlands), funded by ESRC (UK) and NWO (Neth). Plus two postdoctoral researchers • Eight countries in four regions: Brazil, Chile, East Germany, Hungary, Sierra Leone, Uganda, South Korea, Japan

4. The impetus: Policy concerns and a gap in knowledge • Big claims get made: transitional justice (TJ) measures improve democracy and human rights records • Why we care: policy concerns • Value of transitional justice in itself • Expectations of TJ for a range of goals, and huge domestic and international investment • Huge investment in democracy promotion

5. The impetus: Policy concerns and a gap in knowledge • What do we know and what do we not know? The gap in knowledge • Many single-country case studies suggest a range of lessons about TJ, but few trace effects on democracy in detail • Quantitative studies (large-N) suggest contradictory effects of TJ measures on democracy and human rights, and offer little insight about process

6. Transitional justice: key elements (for the project) • Amnesties • Trials • Commissions of Inquiry • Vetting • Restorative measures

7. Democracy: Key elements (for the project) • Rule of law • Political society • Civil society • Security sector

8. So why these countries? • Experienced ‘transition’ from conflict or authoritarian rule (or both) 10 or more years ago • At least one state-directed TJ mechanism • Geographic, past abuse, and ‘geopolitical time’ diversity

9. The big challenge: Can you ‘prove’ causation? • Correlation vs causation • Two big and complex activities (TJ and democracy) • Long timeframe • Very different precursors (endogenous variables) • Many intervening variables

10. Instead of ‘proving’ causation • Contributing elements • Harmful elements • Altering elements • Ultimately, the focus for us is identifying whether there are pathways of influence (via process-tracing)

11. So then what are the questions? • The core questions become: • Can we see pathways by which specific transitional justice measures contribute to specific elements of democracy? • And if so how can we articulate them and account for alternate explanations?

12. So what might this look like? (expectations from the literature) • Expectation 1: The TJ mechanism trials contributes to democracy by contributing to improved rule of law • HOW? Direct training and improvement of capacity; demonstration effect; removal of elements of impunity and persons who benefit • Sierra Leone: does it really?

13. So what might this look like? • Expectation 2: Amnesties can contribute to or undermine democracy by affecting legitimacy of new regime. • HOW? Inclusion of former enemies, enabling political participation. • Brazil, Sierra Leone: Does it really?

14. So what might this look like? • Expectation 3: Vetting can contribute to democratic legitimacy by excluding those with abusive records • HOW? Removal may improve political society (eg political competition), security sector, judicial independence • Hungary, El Salvador: But does it really?

15. So what might this look like? • Expectation 4: Restorative measures (reparation, apology, memorial etc) can contribute to democratic functioning • HOW? Legitimacy of state; citizen participation increases in political and civil society • Brazil, Chile: But do they really?

16. What might this look like? • Expectation 5: Commissions of inquiry contribute to democratic legitimacy and promote rule of law and security sector reform • HOW: Legitimacy via state-sponsored acknowledgment of the past; reform via recommendations • Chile, Sierra Leone: But do they really? What does this mean for the new Brazilian commission?

17. Conducting the investigation: Process-tracing • Requires understanding pre-transition, and transition context and how it shapes transition • Eg Prior state of democracy, for example a conflict-affected state with relatively independent judiciary (Colombia) • Eg geopolitical constraints • Eg external support to mechanisms/transition

18. Conducting the investigation: Process-tracing • Requires understanding intervening variables and events • Transitional politics and events • Eg trials are used as source of political leverage over enemies or otherwise affect democratic politics: Uganda, Kenya, Lebanon • Institutional design • Eg Truth commission with weak mandate • Eg limited domestic trials • Eg amnesty design

19. So what next? • Qualitative research by all four researchers across the eight countries over the next two years • Interviewing lawyers, judges, politicians, civil society actors, international NGOs, and international officials • Co-researchers AnjaMihr and FilipaRaimundo will visit Brazil later this year and next year

20. Discussion • Happy to answer any and all questions on the project and research questions but… • I would particularly like to know your views about the topic, in general and for Brazil • Are these the right questions, in your mind? • Do you think they suit the challenges in Brazil?