Discussions about contestation and resistance of transitional justice (TJ) are fraught with difficulties. Such discussions require an understanding of which particular manifestation of TJ is being contested and/or resisted. The different conceptualisations of TJ, the actors involved and whose/what interests and needs TJ purports to address must all be considered. Furthermore, the question of who determines whether actions are motivated by compliance, manipulation, contestation or resistance and according to what measures must also be asked.
This paper analyses TJ in Nepal, which has been considered a failure due to a lack of political will. However, I argue TJ is an area of continual resistance and contestation both within organisations (e.g. UN) and between actors (victims’ groups, the government of Nepal, human rights agencies and foreign governments). Specific examples demonstrate how the assumed linear trajectory of TJ has been challenged and the relationship between rhetoric and operationalisation of TJ is complex and deeply contingent on local politics. Ultimately, I argue the contestation of the dominant TJ paradigm should be encouraged, and recognised, at the local but also national and international levels. I argue that TJ academics, practitioners and policy-makers need to be cognisant of TJ as it unfolds in Nepal and to let it inform and continually be informed by the previous and ongoing TJ enterprises. This constantly shifting and uncertain ground does not fit well with best practices, toolboxes and cut and paste projects that are ubiquitous in peacebuilding and development but it is in these margins and intersections where dynamism, and perhaps ‘success’, can be found.
