| Abstract | In the burgeoning literature of transition after internal strife numerous attempts have been made to justify the role of truth commission. Scholars frequently argue that while the commission does indeed entail some sacrifice of justice for the sake of stability, it possesses some virtues, in particular the official acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Others have attempted to argue for the inherent moral virtues of these commissions, suggesting that they have the merit of promoting national reconciliation. Each transitional regime's choices are determined by the nature of the peace settlement. There are three factors that appear to make accountability more or less possible. These include the international political and historical context, the history of past abuses and the nature of civil-military relations and the balance of power between the government and the opposition. The article investigates the more nuance trade-offs including transition, delving into the advances that a nascent democracy may be able to achieve by seeking the third path of a truth commission. The merits of this approach may appear to be that it is generally thought that agreeing to amnesties and seeking the truth rather than justice will reduce the risks of military unrest and coups d'etat.
|
