Valeria Vegh Weis

Dictatorships, civil conflicts, and wars are periods of systematic human rights violations. In these circumstances, states might enhance existing political inequality deliberately, e.g. via the persecution of certain groups, or omission, i.e. not intervening in a civil conflict between factions. The question is which actor shall confront the ongoing crimes and enforce human rights. Until now, states and international organizations have been regarded as entities to be relied upon to address state crimes. This widespread norm responds to the fact that these processes are framed by international law, which regulates states and international institutions. However, is it not utopian to expect the state - the same structure that allows inequality to occur either by commission or omission - to lead a transformative, comprehensive, and sustainable process to overturn it? On the other hand, international organizations (e.g. UN, international tribunals) typically have a role to play in transitional justice processes, but they are bureaucratic and technocratic bodies constrained by institutional regulations that are not aligned with the goal of realizing fundamental societal transformation. 

The key hypothesis in the present outline is that the degree of transitional justice achievements toward political equality (dependent variable) is directly related to the degree of victims' involvement (independent variable). To develop this proposal and test these categories, the research investigates three case studies where transitions after state crimes took place: Germany, Argentina, and Kenya.