Replication Data for: Demanding Truth: The Global Transitional Justice Network and the Creation of Truth Commissions

Since 1970, scores of states have established truth commissions to document political violence. Despite their prevalence and potential consequence, the question of why commissions are adopted in some contexts, but not in others, is not well understood. Relatedly, little is known about why some commissions possess strong investigative powers while others do not. I argue that the answer to both questions lies with domestic and international civil society actors, who are connected by a global transitional justice (TJ) network and who share the burden of guiding commission adoption and design. I propose that commissions are more likely to be adopted where network members can leverage information and moral authority over governments. I also suggest that commissions are more likely to possess strong powers where international experts, who steward TJ best practices, advise governments. I evaluate these expectations by analyzing two datasets in the novel Varieties of Truth Commissions Project, interviews with representatives from international non-governmental organizations, interviews with Guatemalan non-governmental organization leaders, a focus group with Argentinian human rights advocates, and a focus group at the International Center for Transitional Justice. My results indicate that network members share the burden—domestic members are essential to commission adoption, while international members are important for strong commission design.

自1970年以来，已有数十个国家设立了真相委员会（Truth Commissions），以记录政治暴力事件。尽管这类委员会的应用十分普遍且可能产生深远影响，但为何部分国家会设立此类委员会、而部分国家却不会，这一问题仍未得到充分解答。与之相关的是，为何部分真相委员会拥有强大的调查权力，而另一部分却没有，相关研究也寥寥无几。笔者认为，这两个问题的答案均与国内及国际民间社会行为体息息相关：这些行为体依托全球过渡正义（Transitional Justice, TJ）网络形成联结，共同承担起引导真相委员会设立与机制设计的重任。笔者提出，当网络成员能够利用自身信息资源与道德权威对政府施加影响力时，真相委员会更有可能被设立。笔者同时认为，若负责践行过渡正义最佳实践的国际专家可为政府提供咨询建议，真相委员会更有可能被赋予强大的调查权力。为验证上述理论预期，本研究依托新型《真相委员会类型学项目（Varieties of Truth Commissions Project）》中的两套数据集展开分析，同时辅之以对国际非政府组织代表的访谈、对危地马拉民间组织负责人的访谈、与阿根廷人权倡导者开展的焦点小组讨论，以及在国际过渡正义中心（International Center for Transitional Justice）举办的焦点小组座谈。研究结果表明，网络成员共同分担了相关职责：国内民间行为体对真相委员会的设立至关重要，而国际民间行为体则对强化真相委员会的机制设计发挥着关键作用。