Punishment Instead of Progress – The Psyche of Injustice as a Critique of Punitive Transitional Justice

Transitional justice has been touted as the most promising framework for addressing conflict and atrocities globally, exemplified by the ICC – an international court which theoretically holds the power to bring perpetrators to justice. However, ‘justice’ at the ICC and beyond is often delivered by victors to 'survivors' in the form of punitive justice, which is branded as a success in international media – with a few perpetrators going to court, justice reigning supreme, and countries moving forward. This paper argues that pursuing punitive justice as the hallmark of transitional justice is a misguided approach at best. Whereas there are many voices advocating for harsher sentences related to human rights atrocities, this approach is vulnerable to exploitation by media-savvy authoritarian leaders institutionalising justice as a political tool. For example in North Uganda, global efforts to bring transitional justice have been co-opted by a government deeply involved in the atrocities in question – a government which now wields an international mandate to ‘pursue justice’, translating to increased suppression and political power. Indeed, similar case studies (such as DRC or Sri Lanka) showcase that confronting violence needs to return power to the people and promote reconciliation, including finding mechanisms for communities to grow together and shape a common understanding of memory, truth and history. This approach can challenge the perception of ‘justice’ as a form of punishment, and instead help communities approach the psyche of the ‘injustice’ as a separate entity that affected groups must grapple with. This is a spatial critique of justice/injustice, proposing bottom-up reconciliation as a tool of dealing with the past that not only aims to deliver a fair justice that is perceived as such even by the perpetrators, but also a tool that can foster pacification and ensure peace on the long term.