English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Truth commissions are widely considered to be a key tool of transitional justice mechanisms (TJMs), whose goal is to achieve truth, justice, and reconciliation after violent conflict or dictatorship. However, policy actors promoting these mechanisms have often not adequately engaged in a critical reflection of the policy measures they are suggesting. Instead, they usually argue from normative points of view rather than relying on empirical evidence. During the last decade, there has been a continued debate as to whether or not TJMs actually work and what impact they have. Drawing on research from three case studies (Kenya, Sierra Leone, and Timor-Leste), this paper analyzes the (non)implementation of recommendations produced in the final reports of truth commissions created after armed conflict. The work focuses on the impact of truth commissions on democracy, peace, and institutional reform. The analysis roughly follows the four-step approach set out by Skaar, Maica, and Eide (2015) to measure the impact of truth commissions and illustrates both the opportunities they provide and their limitations.

Are Truth Commissions Just Hot-Air Balloons? A Reality Check on the Impact of Truth Commission Recommendations