This chapter engages with a Colombian performance action by a group called Cuerpos Gramaticales, or Grammatical Bodies. Members of the collective symbolically sow themselves in public places, planted for six hours with their lower bodies under mounds of dirt and their upper bodies rising as trunks, stems, and leaves from the earth. The action is undertaken to denounce violence, achieve collective catharsis, and (re)align relationships among body, territory, and memory. That is, it is an exercise putting the body at the center of a project to restructure – and to synthesize – ethical, spiritual, ecological, and political grammars that guide sensemaking about violence, life, and death in Colombia. The action was first initiated to denounce a joint state-paramilitary urban massacre two years before Colombia ratified peace accords ending a fifty-three-year armed conflict with its oldest guerrilla army. The chapter discusses actions taken in the early stages of the accords’ implementation, as surviving kin of victims of state-perpetrated crimes against humanity struggled to make state and society acknowledge the significance of their loved ones’ lives and the cruelty of their deaths.

This chapter examines an alternative mode of public deliberation in post-revolutionary Tunisia by focusing on a group of left-wing militants who organize grassroots discussion initiatives, most notably the ciné-club – a gathering that blends film screenings with political debate. The ciné-club serves as a space for reclaiming Tunisia’s suppressed legacy of protest and its involvement in the global radical movements of the long 1960s. In contrast to official forums such as transitional justice hearings, which attempt to reconcile revolutionary ideals with the liberal democratic transition, ciné-club discussions assert the continued relevance of revolutionary leftist culture. They resist the depoliticizing pull of liberal norms and instead propose a different political temporality: one in which the revolutionary past informs an open-ended, insurgent present. By doing so, the ciné-club disrupts dominant narratives of linear democratic progress and reclaims space for alternative political imaginaries.

This first substantive chapter introduces readers to Truth Commissions as an institution and their relationship with international law; the core problem examined in the book, and the overall argument; the main debates in scholarship and practice, which frame the book’s intervention; and the book’s methodological approach and contribution. The chapter begins with an overview of Truth Commissions, their contemporary role, and historical transformation. The discussion focuses on how the jurisprudential tradition of ‘jurisdictional thought’ offers a way of examining how Truth Commissions have ‘authorized’ their accounts of violent events as the truth by drawing on different dimensions of international law. The chapter explains how the book approaches the analysis of Truth Commissions through the study of their representations of truth and authority. This involves setting out the book’s theoretical orientation, which includes the jurisprudence of jurisdictional thought, law and humanities scholarship, and the theory and history of international law; and explaining the importance of the author’s in-country visits and archival research.

The book concludes with a short chapter that invites readers to re-consider the relationship between Truth Commissions and international law. It emphasizes the consequences of this relationship for the quality of state-society relations in the aftermath of violent conflict. It also highlights the importance of paying attention to who is authorizing the inclusion of local cultural expressions of violent conflict in the accounts produced by Truth Commission; who benefits from such inclusions; and what ends are being served.

Although criminal trials are primarily designed to repress individual acts, a new role has emerged with the third generation of jihadist trials. They have become a ‘forum’, giving voice to different actors in order to reconstruct a socio-historical phenomenon in all its complexity, as we have seen with truth commissions in post-conflict countries. These trials have become a space where the defendants recount their path to radicalization, the victims relate their trauma and expectations, the experts situate the phenomenon in a political, social and medical context, and the police and security services expose their work and their difficulties. The rich narratives exposed by the different stakeholders, and most notably by hundreds of victims, are at the center of this organic process, which is being constantly developed by the actors themselves. Obviously, the trial was strictly framed by criminal law procedure, but this framework was partly circumvented, enriched, and even subverted during the trial. This chapter discusses the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan trials and the emergence of a hybrid procedure, which introduced important elements of restorative justice.

This concluding chapter synthesises the handbook’s exploration of victim engagement in transitional justice. It emphasises how the generational framework sheds light on historical shifts and contemporary dynamics throughout the chapters and cases in this book, from the foundational influence of early mobilisation to disruptive modes of resistance today, and how it deepens understanding of the proliferation of intersecting justice struggles through innovative adoption and adaptation of the paradigm. These developments challenge static, state-centric understandings of transitional justice and reveal its porous, evolving boundaries. Key themes for future research include the importance of relationality and relational justice approaches, the sustainability and intergenerational character of justice efforts, and the interplay between decentralisation and translocal agency in victim-led initiatives. Framing transitional justice as an expanding, victim-driven practice embedded within a wider justice ecosystem, the chapter argues for reimagining the field through epistemological and methodological pluralism, alongside deeper ethical reflexivity in scholarship, policy, and practice.

This chapter summarizes the book’s main findings and discusses five major contributions to the study of transitional justice (TJ) as a powerful force to prevent criminal wars in new democracies: (1) the importance of conceptualizing organized crime as a hybrid field of state–criminal networks, where state specialists in violence play a central role; (2) TJ’s power to influence peace and war in the criminal underworld by exposing and sanctioning state specialists in violence; (3) the crucial role of state accountability for the development of peaceful democracies; (4) the importance of dismantling violent counterinsurgent states by means of justice before electoral competition becomes routinized in new democracies; and (5) the dangers that the survival of the counterinsurgent state and its militarized public security practices, and the persistence of criminal wars, pose for the integrity of democratic regimes. The book ends with a reflection on Third Wave democracies. In the mid 1980s, scholars of democratization warned elites and societies to renounce (or at least postpone) demands for accountability for past atrocities to avoid a military backlash that would compromise democratic stability. Accountability Shock draws a different conclusion: Failure to address a repressive past paves the way for a future of democratic instability, large-scale violence, and gross human rights violations.

This chapter develops the theoretical explanation of why transitional justice processes and the reckoning of a repressive history can prevent the outbreak of large-scale criminal violence in new democracies. It first discusses a new conception of organized crime where complicit state specialists in violence are central players in illicit economies and in the production of large-scale criminal violence. It suggests that these engagements often emerge in autocracies, where autocrats allow military and police forces to capitalize on their repressive power to kill political dissidents and on their de facto impunity to control the criminal underworld. If left unaccountable, authoritarian specialists in violence can become leading actors in the production of criminal violence in democracy by defecting to fight turf wars or defending organized criminal groups from positions of power or spearheading Wars on Drugs, Gangs, or Crime. It claims that when new democratic elites expose and sanction authoritarian specialists in violence through robust truth commissions and criminal trials, they unleash a powerful accountability shock that breaks state impunity and deters security forces from using state coercive power to control illicit economies through lethal force. Failure to reckon with a repressive history, and the survival of the violent state, sets new democracies on trajectories of power abuse and criminal wars.

Proceedings before the International Criminal Court (ICC) can form integral parts of encompassing transitional justice processes for addressing international crimes. Therefore, the ICC’s principle of complementarity is essential to determine whether justice must be served and by whom – states or the ICC. In April 2024, the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor published its first Policy on Complementarity and Cooperation, which reflects a broader evolution of victims’ roles in international law: from non-recognition to justice actors with numerous rights and an independent voice in proceedings. It emphasises strategic partnership and vigilance as tools for diminishing the impunity gap and bringing justice closer to victims. This chapter examines the policy through the lens of generations of victim participation. It concludes that structural changes at the ICC are necessary to maximise the policy’s potential for continuous meaningful victim participation at all stages of proceedings nationally, regionally, and internationally.

Chile is a paradigmatic transitional justice case illustrating the sequencing, coexistence, and intermingling of the types of victim engagement that this book examines. This chapter traces active (co)-creation by relatives in the search for the Disappeared in dictatorial and post-dictatorship Chile. It outlines the gradual accretion of different forms of engagement: denunciation and resistance, legal activism and political lobbying, and protagonism in calling for, and calling forth, a new state policy response in the form of a National Search Plan, launched in 2023. Analysing relatives’ participation in design of the Search Plan meanwhile reveals divergent and changing views about the relative importance of trials, truth, recovery, and identification of those still disappeared. Overall, Chile’s trajectory shows how many now-familiar categories of transitional justice demands were originally hard won from below. It also suggests the state may at times be needed to mediate between contrasting or contradictory victims’ voices.

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.

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.

This chapter presents the statistical analysis of the main theoretical propositions across countries. It first discusses the sample of seventy-six Third Wave democracies (1974–2005), why the homicide rate is used as the metric of criminal violence, and the different indices created to capture various dimensions of truth commissions, trials, and amnesty laws. It then explains why we test for the immediate and cumulative impacts of truth commissions, trials, and amnesty laws and their joint effects. Using the global sample and a subsample of seventeen Latin American countries, the results indicate that truth commissions have a strong deterrent effect on the murder rate and criminal prosecution only has an impact when combined with truth commissions. The joint effect of truth and justice represents the accountability shock’s violence-reducing effect. The shock is more powerful in the Latin American subsample. Additional models reveal two crucial points: (1) to have an effect, the accountability shock needs to be robust; and (2) the effect of the accountability shock (absent other measures) expires after about ten years. The positive association between amnesty laws and higher homicide rates reinforces the conclusion that persistent state impunity promotes violence, underscoring the importance of accountability for past atrocities as necessary for future violence reduction.

This chapter uses the Latin American case studies presented in the previous chapters to identify general cross-national patterns and historically ground the theory and statistical findings about transitional justice’s (TJ) violence prevention effect. It first shows that during the Cold War all six countries developed counterinsurgent states with striking similarities under autocracy. In all cases, authoritarian specialists in violence capitalized on their power to kill with impunity to dominate the criminal underworld. It then discusses how TJ was a fork in the road. The adoption of robust TJ processes, combining strong truth commissions and criminal prosecution of perpetrators, allowed Argentina, Peru, and Guatemala to dismantle counterinsurgent states, preventing criminal wars and reducing violence and gross human rights violations. But the persistence of state impunity and the survival of the counterinsurgent state led to Wars on Drugs or Gangs or Crime and to turf wars that resulted in mass atrocities in Mexico, El Salvador, and Brazil. The final section discusses how in cases with robust TJ the institutionalization of accountability policies can contribute to the development of self-sustaining peaceful democracies, and how a reformulated TJ toolkit can serve democracies with persistent impunity, trapped in deadly criminal wars, enter into paths of peaceful reconstruction.