The aim of the overall project was to scrutinise the influence of politics in the set up and work of peacebuilding mechanisms in post-conflict societies. In this context, the focus was on the analysis of processes of dealing with the past. Central was the question of how a violent past should be dealt with and how this affects the relationship of the former warring parties with each other. After the start of the project, the focus of analysis increasingly shifted to the concept of transitional justice, although peacebuilding mechanisms in general were still observed. This was due to several reasons: Firstly, it became clear that transitional justice received increasing international attention and the research project could make a significant contribution to the ongoing debate. On the other hand, in scrutinising transitional justice more in depth, it became clear that the other peacebuilding mechanisms identified in the project – reconciliation initiatives and unification policies – were often already included in the debate on transitional justice.
Methodologically, the project used discourse analysis, with the help of which it would be possible to examine social change. Based on the data collected in the four countries it was explored to what extent the peacebuilding measures reproduced or challenged the dominant discourses in these societies. During the fieldwork a mix of qualitative methods were used on the meso and micro level to collect empirical data as a basis for discourse analysis: interviews with those directly affected by the conflicts, experts, members of relevant organizations, politicians and religious or traditional leaders. Also, the researchers conducted focus group interviews and participant observation in local organizations or committees, as well as participant observation and informal conversations in everyday environments. This was complemented with the analysis of literature, gray literature, periodicals and archival work.
The research project showed that certain policies in the post-conflict societies do have an influence on construction, design and operation of the peacebuilding instruments but that this influence does not extend to the impact of these mechanisms. This means therefore that a peacebuilding instrument, such as a truth commission, may be perceived as a success in international or national spheres, but that this may not automatically be relevant or helpful for the people affected. Although war crimes tribunals such as the ICTY or the Special Court for Sierra Leone render judgment in accordance with international law and may be assumed as neutral, they do not automatically contribute to peacebuilding. As the case studies to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia showed, local media or members of the political elite may not be able to influence the (internationally designed) instruments themselves, but they may shape the perception of their results. The Sierra Leonean case study showed, on the other hand, that the desire for official dealing with the past was relatively low from the beginning and that the impact of some peacebuilding mechanisms were considered irrelevant by the affected people. The case study of Mozambique finally emphasised the importance of national and local strategies of the past.
A significant contribution of this research project is that it not only examined the policies that affected the peacebuilding mechanisms, but also into consideration the specifics of the relevant national or local contexts. In particular, the long field research trips of at least 5 months per case study enabled the project team to reach a comprehensive insight into the broader political and everyday life after the civil wars in these countries. Also, the project unearthed a number of additional factors that would not have been included in a more conventional study limited on the peacebuilding instruments themselves. Therefore the research project also encourages the study of the broader contextualization of peacebuilding instruments.
Finally, the project also benefited from the interdisciplinary nature of the research team, which has forced all team members to thoroughly ground their research theoretically. Inspired by the many discussions during throughout the project cycle, the team published an edited volume entitled “Transitional Justice Theories”. This contribution to the international debate on Transitional Justice debate deals with fundamental theoretical questions concerning Transitional Justice and is intended for academics from different disciplines, practitioners and politicians.
Over the past decades, the practise of and research on transitional justice have expanded to preserving memory in the form of memorials. Memorials often employ a common architectural language and a set of political and ethical claims dictate the effect memory can or should have after large-scale violence: providing public sites of commemoration and mourning, putting past wrongs right, holding perpetrators accountable, vindicating the dignity of victims-survivors and contributing to reconciliation. The goal of this volume is to situate the analysis of transitional justice within memory studies’ broader critical understanding of the socio-political, aesthetic and ethical concerns underlying these memorial projects. It combines the two by providing a transnational selection of single case-studies that emphasise the global dimension of memory culture while couching it in current debates in the field of transitional justice.