Description
Transitional justice grapples with a profound challenge: how should societies address a past of human rights violations to create a lasting peace? This challenge revolves around a dilemma between two paths. On the one hand, a punitive approach seeking retribution against those most responsible for such atrocities. On the other, there's the path of pardon aiming to expedite the cessation of violence by offering amnesties. Therefore, our paper aims to answer three interconnected questions: 1. Are amnesties credible incentives for the de-escalation of organised violence in the long-term? 2. Does the magnitude of conflicts influence the credibility of amnesties as incentives for the de-escalation of organised violence in in-conflict bargaining? 3. Are UNPKOs and/or Foreign Military Interventions effective third-parties in alleviating mutual distrust among combatants during amnesty processes? .
To answer these questions, this paper examines 30 amnesty processes that have unfolded since 2001, with a focus on their impact on peacebuilding. Drawing upon insights derived from Credible Commitment Theory, the paper unveils three findings: first, in the majority of cases scrutinized, amnesty processes are associated with a reduction in organized violence. Second, it becomes evident that amnesties in low to mid-intensity conflicts wield a more pronounced pacifying effect compared to those in high-conflict scenarios. Third, amnesties appear to be particularly effective when in tandem with UNPKOs. In summary, the paper posits that amnesties can play a constructive role in conflict resolution processes. However, it emphasizes a critical concern: when amnesties are associated with an increase in fatalities, the escalation in the conflict's intensity is very significant.
