This article focuses on the relationship between peace negotiations that include transitional justice provisions and the outcome of the negotiations. I develop a set of theoretical conjectures on the significance of transitional justice provisions and test them empirically using a large original dataset of negotiations years that covers over 70 peace processes between 1989 and 2014. The analysis indicates that a combination of truth and reconciliation provisions, as well as amnesty provisions, are associated with an increase in the odds that the peace negotiation ends in a final peace accord. To substantiate the empirical analysis, I also provide a discussion of examples from peace negotiations in Colombia, Liberia, Israel-Palestine and Guatemala. The results suggest that agreements on truth and reconciliation provisions serve as an alternative form of justice and accountability and can be an effective compromise between demands for retributive measures by one side and calls for forgetfulness on the other.
