Replication Data for: Evidence-Based Transitional Justice

The field of “transitional justice” refers to a range of processes and mechanisms for accountability, truth-seeking, and reconciliation that governments and communities pursue in the aftermath of major societal traumas, including civil war, mass atrocities, and authoritarianism. This relatively new field emerged in the 1980s as scholars, practitioners, and policymakers looked for guidance to support post-authoritarian and post-communist transitions to democracy in East- ern Europe and Latin America. Since then, the field has grown rapidly—so rapidly that it is out- pacing its capacity to learn from past mistakes. Recent methodological advances in the study of public attitudes about transitional justice through quantitative surveys and qualitative interview methods provide unprecedented insights into how different mechanisms—including domestic and international prosecutions, truth commissions, amnesty laws, and compensation—are perceived by their intended beneficiaries. The results have been troubling. Numerous studies in diverse con- texts found that some of the most well-known transitional justice mechanisms, including those employed in South Africa, Rwanda, and Cambodia, failed to achieve their objectives of peacebuild- ing and reconciliation. In some cases, these policies had harmful consequences for their intended beneficiaries, including retraumatization and perceived “justice gaps” between victims’ preferred remedies and their actual outcomes. There is an urgent need for the field of transitional justice to learn from this growing body of empirical research to develop evidence-based policies and programs that achieve their intended objectives. This Feature critically reviews the intellectual development of the field, consolidating empirical findings of relevant studies across disciplines—law, political science, sociology, econom- ics, public health, psychology, and anthropology—and identifying open debates and questions for future research. We focus on research about public attitudes toward transitional justice in the com- munities directly impacted by conflict. In addition to reviewing previous research, we present new data from original public opinion surveys in Iraq and Ukraine relevant to ongoing transitional justice efforts in those countries. We use this evidence to identify lessons learned, including mis- takes, in the design and implementation of previous transitional justice processes. We conclude by discussing the normative and prescriptive implications of our findings for efforts to improve future transitional justice laws and policies.“过渡司法（transitional justice）”领域指各国政府与社群在经历内战、大规模暴行与威权统治等重大社会创伤后，为实现问责、求真与和解而推行的一系列程序与机制。这一相对新兴的领域于20世纪80年代兴起，彼时学者、实务工作者与政策制定者正寻求指导，以助力东欧与拉美的威权后国家及后共产主义国家向民主转型。自彼时起，该领域发展迅猛——其速度之快，已然超越了从过往失误中汲取经验的能力。近年来，借助定量调查与质性访谈方法开展过渡司法公众态度研究的方法论进展，为不同机制（包括国内与国际追诉、真相委员会、大赦法与赔偿）如何被其目标受益群体认知，提供了前所未有的洞察。研究结果令人担忧：在多元情境下开展的大量研究发现，包括南非、卢旺达与柬埔寨所采用的机制在内，部分最广为人知的过渡司法机制未能实现其和平建设与和解的目标。在部分案例中，此类政策对目标受益群体造成了伤害，包括二次创伤以及受害者期望的救济方式与实际结果之间存在的“正义缺口”。过渡司法领域亟需从这一不断壮大的实证研究体系中汲取经验，以制定循证的政策与项目，达成其预设目标。本专题特稿批判性梳理了该领域的学科发展脉络，整合了法学、政治学、社会学、经济学、公共卫生、心理学与人类学等跨学科相关研究的实证成果，并明确了未来研究尚待探讨的开放议题与待解问题。我们聚焦于受冲突直接影响的社群对过渡司法的态度研究。除梳理既往研究外，我们还呈现了在伊拉克与乌克兰开展的原创性民意调查的全新数据，这些数据与两国当前的过渡司法实践息息相关。我们依托这些证据，梳理了此前过渡司法程序在设计与实施过程中的经验教训，包括其中的失误。最后，我们讨论了本研究发现对完善未来过渡司法法律法规与政策的规范性与指导性启示。