Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

The maintenance and/or achievement of security is of paramount importance within settings recovering from armed conflict; however existing studies in the field of peacebuilding do not sufficiently explore how various processes undertaken within peacebuilding programming result in different types of security outcomes at the individual and community level. In this article, I develop a novel conceptual framework for analyzing “micro-level” security risks and benefits of peacebuilding processes, through an adapted version of Johan Galtung’s work on direct and structural violence. For the purposes of this article, the framework is applied in the context of “local” transitional justice (TJ) processes used in the aftermath of armed conflict, for which advocacy and implementation has increased in the recent past. Relying on a social psychological definition of security, I disaggregate components of direct and structural violence and use illustrative examples from existing empirical studies about the effects of local TJ processes in various settings to demonstrate ways in which these types of violence may be perpetuated, or initiated in new forms through these processes, thus posing security risks. The framework is further developed through the elucidation of factors that may help to repair the consequences of direct and structural violence and/or hinder the likelihood of their repetition, thematically conceptualized as physical and psychological welfare and social justice (respective to direct and structural violence) that I suggest link to security benefits. The framework intends to provide new perspectives on understanding how peacebuilding processes may both promote and prevent security from being realized at the local level following armed conflict.

Existing research suggests that victims' needs and desires often go unfulfilled after testifying in truth commissions, which commonly leads to disappointment with transitional justice processes. What is lesser discussed is why it is that victims anticipate receiving particular benefits or outcomes following truth-telling and possible consequences when nothing results after the process ends. Semistructured interviews conducted with victims of mass violence in Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste who gave public testimony during their country's truth commission indicate that victims anticipated practical outcomes that would improve their lives following their truth commission participation. These expectations appear to have developed because of inherent feelings that their contribution to the commission would be reciprocated or because of either explicit or implicit promises made by their country's truth commission/government. When these promises were broken or reciprocation not delivered, victims experienced an array of negative feelings including frustration, anger, and sadness. This article argues that victims can be further disempowered and marginalized when they do not receive a substantive benefit following their contribution to a truth commission. The grievances that can result in this way not only threaten the legitimacy of the truth commission and by extension the transitional state, but also the preservation of lasting peace.

In recent decades, transitional justice processes have increasingly placed a focus on victims of mass violence, which has been particularly noticeable in truth commissions. Although truth commissions have become more "victim-centered" over time, there is little empirical research that examines what this actually portends for victims in practice, particularly in terms of how these institutions interact with local norms and sociocultural values. To begin addressing this gap, this article highlights several findings from nineteen semi-structured interviews conducted in Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste, which suggest that the truth-commission processes in each country may have missed the mark in terms of respecting the sociocultural values as well as local norms and expectations of those who participated in their national public hearings. Based on the data obtained from this study, it appears that ignoring sociocultural values and local norms may cause negative consequences for victims, including hindering their ability to move beyond their past trauma as well as inciting distress, worry, and confusion. The findings presented in this article draw attention to potentially problematic issues that arise within truth commissions when local norms and values are ignored; the hope is that this will help substantiate the need for developing culturally sensitive and locally relevant transitional justice processes, thus contributing to both theory and practice in the field of transitional justice.

This book intends to contribute to the growing body of transitional justice literature by providing insight into how truth commissions may be beneficial to victims of mass violence, based on data collected in Timor-Leste and on the Solomon Islands. Drawing on literature in the fields of victim psychology, procedural justice, and transitional justice, this study is guided by the puzzle of why truth-telling in post-conflict settings has been found to be both helpful and harmful to victims of mass violence. Existing studies have identified a range of positive benefits and negative consequences of truth-telling for victims; however, the reasons why some victims experience a sense of healing while others do not after participating in post-conflict truth commission processes continues to remain unclear. Hence, to address one piece of this complex puzzle, this book seeks to begin clarifying how truth-telling may be beneficial for victims by investigating the question: What pathways lead from truth-telling to victim healing in post-conflict settings? Building on the proposition that having voice—a key component of procedural justice—can help individuals to overcome the disempowerment and marginalisation of victimisation, this book investigates voice­ as a  causal mechanism that can create pathways toward healing within truth commission public hearings.   Comparative, empirical studies that investigate how truth-telling contributes to victim healing in post-conflict settings are scarce in the field of transitional justice. This book begins to fill an important gap in the existing body of literature. From a practical standpoint, by enhancing understanding of how truth commissions can promote healing, the findings and arguments in this volume provide insight into how the design of transitional justice processes may be improved in the future to better respond to the needs of victims of mass violence.