“triple accountability” concept21, involving individual, state, and societal responsibilities in order to provide a sustainable reconciliation process and effective justice framework. This will be illustrated, followed by Bieber’s analysis of “functionality and dysfunctionality”22 of power-sharing institutions and finally, Horowitz’s emphasis on constitution-building processes will be outlined.
VVA transitional justice effort is essential in furthering goals of sustainable long-term peace in a post-conflict state23. Although the primary role in this regard was once held by states themselves, intergovernmental and supranational institutions such as the United Nations and European Union are becoming more involved as mediators and actors in transitional justice frameworks. In fact, the EU “develops and promotes transitional justice policies as part of its enlargement strategy as well as its broader foreign and security policies”24. It is worth to point out the emphasis on regionalism and the impact of justice on security concerns, once again demonstrated by the regional security complex theory25. To a certain extent, lustration must be experienced by the population to entrench the truth and ease the reconciliation and integration processes. The EU holds an incredible amount of soft power; that is to say, its ideological and value-based diplomacy is a powerful force in facilitating these transitional justice initiatives26.
VVExisting apparatuses aside, some additional qualifications have contributed to research around transitional justice and power-sharing initiatives.
VVSubotic proposes a triple-tiered approach to criminal regulation and justice frameworks: hold individual perpetrators, state policy advisors and implementers, and the supportive or approving society accountable[1]. This relies on the assumption that statements of truth around criminal acts undertaken, identification of individual perpetrators, and appropriate punishment are necessary to reinforce reconciliation initiatives, particularly by ending impunity[2]. In referring to state policy advisors and implementers, that is to hold accountable those in the conflict-affected regime rather than those in the government at the time of transitional justice and post-conflict integration measures. The individual responsibility proposed falls along what currently exists in the global justice framework – exemplified by the International Criminal Court and its emphasis on individual accountability for actions undertaken
96
21. Subotic 2011, p.157
22. Bieber 2004, p.85
23. Crossley-Frolick 2011
24. Ibid. p.33
25. Buzan and Waever 2003
26. Subotic 2011