Reports
Transitional Justice in the New World Order – Maintaining the Path to Peace and Justice
- International Justice Team
- 15 May 2025
In recent years, geopolitical polarization and eroded multilateralism have drastically altered the international legal and political landscape, weakening the influence of global norms and institutions. The decline is especially pronounced in conflict settings, where civilian casualties have reached a decade high in the Ukraine and Gaza wars. These events signal more than just institutional failure, they suggest that the very boundaries of what is considered politically and legally permissible are shifting.
Practices once deemed clear violations of international law, such as collective punishment, annexation of territory, or targeting of civilian infrastructure, are now openly contested or even normalized.
Post-conflict mechanisms, such as transitional justice, have come under significant strain. Transitional justice emerged as a framework predicated on a liberal vision of global governance, where post-conflict societies could reckon with past atrocities and achieve reconciliation. Its effectiveness has been the subject of much debate over the years, however, it now faces unprecedented challenges as the assumptions that underpinned its development, namely a liberal world order and the willingness of states to collaborate, are in question.
As states grow more reluctant to cooperate with international institutions, and conflicts are increasingly shaped by asymmetrical warfare and the emergence of non-state actors, it is timely to dissect established peacebuilding practices. Research into transitional justice is important not only for understanding its current limitations, but also for rethinking its relevance, adaptability, and future trajectory. As the international order continues to fragment, transitional justice finds itself at a crossroads: will it evolve into a more context-sensitive, politically aware tool of peacebuilding, or will it be sidelined as a relic of a bygone liberal moment? This report seeks to illuminate the risks of selective justice and identify innovative, hybrid approaches that integrate both global norms and local realities, while resisting co-optation by state and non-state actors.
Such research is also vital for reinvigorating the normative foundations of international justice and proposing realistic pathways forward. In a time when human rights are increasingly overlooked and multilateral action appears gridlocked, transitional justice may offer alternative modes of dealing with violence, enabling societies to imagine and pursue justice even in the absence of strong institutional backing. By critically assessing what has worked, what has failed, and why, this report seeks to answer a pressing question: can transitional justice be reimagined to remain relevant in a fractured, multipolar world?
Practices once deemed clear violations of international law, such as collective punishment, annexation of territory, or targeting of civilian infrastructure, are now openly contested or even normalized.
Post-conflict mechanisms, such as transitional justice, have come under significant strain. Transitional justice emerged as a framework predicated on a liberal vision of global governance, where post-conflict societies could reckon with past atrocities and achieve reconciliation. Its effectiveness has been the subject of much debate over the years, however, it now faces unprecedented challenges as the assumptions that underpinned its development, namely a liberal world order and the willingness of states to collaborate, are in question.
As states grow more reluctant to cooperate with international institutions, and conflicts are increasingly shaped by asymmetrical warfare and the emergence of non-state actors, it is timely to dissect established peacebuilding practices. Research into transitional justice is important not only for understanding its current limitations, but also for rethinking its relevance, adaptability, and future trajectory. As the international order continues to fragment, transitional justice finds itself at a crossroads: will it evolve into a more context-sensitive, politically aware tool of peacebuilding, or will it be sidelined as a relic of a bygone liberal moment? This report seeks to illuminate the risks of selective justice and identify innovative, hybrid approaches that integrate both global norms and local realities, while resisting co-optation by state and non-state actors.
Such research is also vital for reinvigorating the normative foundations of international justice and proposing realistic pathways forward. In a time when human rights are increasingly overlooked and multilateral action appears gridlocked, transitional justice may offer alternative modes of dealing with violence, enabling societies to imagine and pursue justice even in the absence of strong institutional backing. By critically assessing what has worked, what has failed, and why, this report seeks to answer a pressing question: can transitional justice be reimagined to remain relevant in a fractured, multipolar world?
✨ AI summary
In recent years, geopolitical polarization and eroded multilateralism have drastically altered the international legal and political landscape, weakening the influence of global norms and institutions. The decline is especially pronounced in conflict settings, where civilian casualties have reached a decade high in the Ukraine and Gaza wars. These events signal more than just institutional failure, they suggest that the very boundaries of what is considered politically and legally permissible are shifting.
Practices once deemed clear violations of international law, such as collective punishment, annexation of territory, or targeting of civilian infrastructure, are now openly contested or even normalized.
Post-conflict mechanisms, such as transitional justice, have come under significant strain. Transitional justice emerged as a framework predicated on a liberal vision of global governance, where post-conflict societies could reckon with past atrocities and achieve reconciliation. Its effectiveness has been the subject of much debate over the years, however, it now faces unprecedented challenges as the assumptions that underpinned its development, namely a liberal world order and the willingness of states to collaborate, are in question.
As states grow more reluctant to cooperate with international institutions, and conflicts are increasingly shaped by asymmetrical warfare and the emergence of non-state actors, it is timely to dissect established peacebuilding practices. Research into transitional justice is important not only for understanding its current limitations, but also for rethinking its relevance, adaptability, and future trajectory. As the international order continues to fragment, transitional justice finds itself at a crossroads: will it evolve into a more context-sensitive, politically aware tool of peacebuilding, or will it be sidelined as a relic of a bygone liberal moment? This report seeks to illuminate the risks of selective justice and identify innovative, hybrid approaches that integrate both global norms and local realities, while resisting co-optation by state and non-state actors.
Such research is also vital for reinvigorating the normative foundations of international justice and proposing realistic pathways forward. In a time when human rights are increasingly overlooked and multilateral action appears gridlocked, transitional justice may offer alternative modes of dealing with violence, enabling societies to imagine and pursue justice even in the absence of strong institutional backing. By critically assessing what has worked, what has failed, and why, this report seeks to answer a pressing question: can transitional justice be reimagined to remain relevant in a fractured, multipolar world?
Practices once deemed clear violations of international law, such as collective punishment, annexation of territory, or targeting of civilian infrastructure, are now openly contested or even normalized.
Post-conflict mechanisms, such as transitional justice, have come under significant strain. Transitional justice emerged as a framework predicated on a liberal vision of global governance, where post-conflict societies could reckon with past atrocities and achieve reconciliation. Its effectiveness has been the subject of much debate over the years, however, it now faces unprecedented challenges as the assumptions that underpinned its development, namely a liberal world order and the willingness of states to collaborate, are in question.
As states grow more reluctant to cooperate with international institutions, and conflicts are increasingly shaped by asymmetrical warfare and the emergence of non-state actors, it is timely to dissect established peacebuilding practices. Research into transitional justice is important not only for understanding its current limitations, but also for rethinking its relevance, adaptability, and future trajectory. As the international order continues to fragment, transitional justice finds itself at a crossroads: will it evolve into a more context-sensitive, politically aware tool of peacebuilding, or will it be sidelined as a relic of a bygone liberal moment? This report seeks to illuminate the risks of selective justice and identify innovative, hybrid approaches that integrate both global norms and local realities, while resisting co-optation by state and non-state actors.
Such research is also vital for reinvigorating the normative foundations of international justice and proposing realistic pathways forward. In a time when human rights are increasingly overlooked and multilateral action appears gridlocked, transitional justice may offer alternative modes of dealing with violence, enabling societies to imagine and pursue justice even in the absence of strong institutional backing. By critically assessing what has worked, what has failed, and why, this report seeks to answer a pressing question: can transitional justice be reimagined to remain relevant in a fractured, multipolar world?
Share this report
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
