This Chapter will provide a detailed examination of IHL’s threshold of termination and is comprised of five substantive sections. The first section explores the temporal architecture of Common Article 3 (CA3) and Additional Protocol II (APII) to determine what, if anything, conventional IHL has to say about is threshold of termination during NIAC. The second section unpacks and critically examines four doctrinal approaches for determining the temporal scope of IHL during NIAC: the ‘peaceful settlement’ approach, the ‘lasting pacification’ approach, the ‘two-way ratchet’ theory, and the ‘human rights law’ approach. While each of these approaches possess certain advantages and limitations, it is argued that none produce entirely satisfactory results. For this reason, the third section revisits the logic that underpins and informs the theory and practice of IHL’s temporal scope during NIAC. Following from this analysis, the fourth  section proposes an alternative ‘functional approach for determining IHL’s threshold of termination during NIAC, and demonstrates the utility of the ‘functional approach’ over existing approaches by exploring its practical application to specific examples from the hostilities regime and the protections regime during NIAC.

Chapter 2 examines changes in colonial mercy proceedings from the late 1940s to the 1960s, and the tensions that arose between decolonisation and British involvement in determining the fate of condemned prisoners. These tensions were apparent in cases from British Guiana, Malaya and Kenya, among others, but in the immediate aftermath of British abolition they were especially pronounced in the Bahamas, which had a constitutionally advanced system of internal self-government and where, in 1968, British ministers prevented the execution of two prisoners whom locally elected political leaders and the governor had decided should hang. Analysis of these cases reveals the dynamics of death penalty culture and political debates in the Bahamas and demonstrates that Britain could not divorce itself from the ramifications of colonial capital cases, even as successive British governments remained formally committed to the Creech Jones doctrine that they should not interfere in determining the fate of condemned prisoners.

This chapter explores how in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), as a non-transitional context, transitional justice discourse and logic is mobilised in diverse and innovative ways. While some justice initiatives explicitly adopt the rhetoric of transitional justice, others align with its logic and objectives without directly invoking the language. The chapter examines three key cases: how specific groups, such as youth, engage in transitional justice claims; how particular demands, notably regarding sexual and gender-based violence, shape justice efforts; and how transitional justice is repurposed in new struggles, including environmental justice. Through perspectives from eastern DRC, the chapter highlights how innovation and experimentation emerge in response to institutional limitations and contextual needs, ultimately questioning and expanding the boundaries of transitional justice as both a discourse and a practice.

This chapter examines the evolving engagement of the Syrian diaspora in Germany with justice processes through the lens of post-revolutionary diasporic consciousness. It focuses on the intersection between accountability for the Assad regime’s atrocities and the broader struggle against structural oppression and political exclusion in exile. Syrians living in the diaspora face a dual struggle. They address Syria’s violent past while grappling with marginalisation in host countries. Disillusionment with Universal Jurisdiction frameworks, coupled with anti-migration policies, has led to a shift towards grassroots and artistic practices that better reflect lived realities. As a result, Syrian justice efforts simultaneously mobilise and demobilise elements of different transitional justice approaches, rather than following a linear progression or standardised logic. Drawing on fieldwork conducted between 2019 and 2024, the chapter argues that the intersecting identities and positionalities of Syrian migrants shape intersecting justice struggles, reframing justice as a transnational, multi-faceted pursuit of recognition, inclusion, and agency.

Businesses have a long-standing record of involvement in severe human rights violations, a trend that continues today and is likely to persist, and that is often aggravated during periods of conflict. However, corporate actors have mostly been excluded from transitional justice mechanisms, and corporate accountability remains an elusive element of transitional justice. In this context of impunity, scholars have called for the inclusion of economic actors in transitional justice processes and for stronger links between the transitional justice and business and human rights (BHR) fields. Focusing on Colombia, this chapter explores the mobilisation of victims’ organisations during and after the Peace Agreements, highlighting their pivotal role in shaping transitional justice and BHR debates and contesting corporate impunity. It underscores the need for context-sensitive, legally binding accountability mechanisms, and argues that addressing corporate complicity in conflict is not only essential for achieving justice but also a demand rooted in victims’ lived experiences, offering valuable insights for the intersection of transitional justice and BHR.

While the international legal issues related to the search for disappeared persons have received considerable attention, limited research has been conducted on how participation in the search impacts victims’ lives. In particular, we argue that the importance of victim recognition needs to be inserted into these discussions, and our understanding improved about what types of institutional and social responses are needed to ensure effective and victim-oriented search processes. Our chapter utilises the concept of ‘recognition relationships’ with reference to two cases: Colombia and El Salvador. Our discussion illuminates the ways in which a focus on recognition relationships captures the dynamics of power, mobilisation, and participation which are central to any successful and just search process.

It has been widely recognised in the legal as well as law and economics literature that both regulatory and private enforcement are needed to ensure the effectiveness of market regulation in general and EU private law in particular. This chapter unpacks the interplay between these two enforcement mechanisms, focusing on three major issues that arise in practice: the disclosure of evidence gathered by regulatory agencies, the limitation periods for private enforcement actions, and the combined application of administrative sanctions and private law remedies. The chapter constructs three models of the relationship between public and private enforcement – separation, substitution, and complementarity – and explains their main characteristics, manifestations, and implications. It also assesses the potential of each model to strike the right balance between deterrence in the name of the public interest and compensation in the name of interpersonal justice, as well as between uniformity and diversity in regulatory and private enforcement, and draws out some of the practical implications of this analysis for EU private lawmaking and enforcement.

In situations of aparadigmatic transitions, where formal transitional justice mechanisms do not exist, or may only partially exist, ‘victims’ are typically the most active drivers behind a range of intersecting justice struggles. Based on the author’s fieldwork in Kabul with war victims since 2008, this chapter underlines the importance of a bottom-up and victim-centred approach towards memorialisation and accountability efforts. This approach emphasises participation, agency and empowerment. In particular, it elaborates on the meaningfulness of methodologies used in the Theatre of the Oppressed to engage, raise awareness, and create participatory forums for war victims in Afghanistan from 2009 to August 2021. These methodologies offer various perspectives on understanding the protagonism of victims, and require us to embrace and recognise different approaches to engaging in the justice process.