Research Overview
Post Agreement Reconciliation(s) in Changing Political Eras: Comparing Northern Ireland, Colombia, and Basque Country is an international research effort analyzing the factors that hinder or promote reconciliation. Below is the theoretical framework for the project. Read the Overview, Partners, and Purpose of this research.
Theoretical Framework
The study of reconciliation in settings transitioning through conflict and/or sustained violence has evolved
substantially over the last thirty years. As the expression of war began to shift from inter-state to intra-state
violence in the immediate post-Cold War era, reconciliation became a necessary component for durable
peace. Once peace treaties were signed, former enemies, perpetrators, and direct or indirect victims were not
withdrawing behind State boundaries. Instead, they were resuming life side-by-side. The gradual (re)building
of social relationships that had been alienated by severe and sustained violence became critical to
peacebuilding initiatives. Facing the past while negotiating a mutually-acceptable and interdependent future
would – at the very least – require co-existence. In these settings, the need for some level of reconciliation
became significant. Although reconciliation has since become inherently intertwined with peacebuilding,
transitional justice, and state-building efforts, its meaning remains elusive. As a multi-level and multi-faceted
process, reconciliation covers a broad scope of activities, and it has multiple meanings along the
peacebuilding continuum. Within the scholarly community, reconciliation has been theorized across several
disciplines, and the literatures are expansive. What follows are highlights from discussions that are
particularly relevant to this research initiative, and a working definition of reconciliation that guides the
project.
After the launch of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, literatures on reconciliation
proliferated (see Bloom[ield, 2003; Hamber & Kelly, 2004; Huyse, 2003; Kriesberg, 1998; Lederach, 1997;
Philpott, 2008). Parallel to these discussions, transitional justice and legal frameworks were also evolving to
include a wide range of institutions, actors, and mechanisms. As the dynamic interplay between
peacebuilding, reconciliation, and transitional justice continued, these processes were also in[luenced by
international, national, and local demands. In rhetoric and practice, calls for political, national, and social
reconciliation became increasingly embedded in peace agreements such as in Northern Ireland (1998), East
Timor (1999), Liberia (2003), Nepal and Burundi (2006), Colombia (2016), and the Democratic Republic of
Congo (2020). Reconciliation is now woven throughout international courts and truth commissions,
institutional and constitutional reform, DDR programs, reparations, memorialization, and localized efforts.
Framed as both an outcome and process, it has become a standard component of peace agreement
negotiations and post-agreement initiatives.
Reconciliation’s conceptual journey, however, has been marked by definitional vagueness, imprecise
meanings, and contestations. Decades of scholarly literature have described reconciliation’s theoretical
complexity and underscored the limitations to any clear de[inition (see Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2004; Bloom[ield,
2003; Hamber & Kelly, 2009; Oettler & Rettberg, 2019; Pankhurst. 1999; Rettberg & Ugarriza, 2016). There is
still no formally accepted de[inition of reconciliation. Framed along a peace spectrum that ranges from
minimal peaceful coexistence between former enemies to maximal goals of acknowledgement, apology, and
forgiveness, navigating its inherent paradoxes and tensions remains a persistent conceptual pursuit
(Strömbom, 2016; Verdeja 2012). Vagueness aside, reconciliation has still become a key normative concept in
peacebuilding theory and practice. In his seminal work related to building and sustaining peace in divided
societies, Lederach (1997) identi[ied two fundamental characteristics of reconciliation that have largely
withstood the test of time. First, that reconciliation is essentially linked to peace, whether considered as a
process or a goal. Secondly, that the process of reconciliation, in its full range of political, social, and
psychological dimensions, is central to healing and social transformation.
For purposes of this project, we acknowledge that multiple reconciliation(s) need to take place in the
aftermath of prolonged and persistent violence. Drawing upon existing conceptual discussions of
reconciliation (Bloom[ield, 2003; Brounéus 2003; Hamber & Kelly 2004; 2009; Rettberg & Ugarriza 2016)
our working definition is:
Reconciliation is a process that gradually (re)builds positive, mutually respectful relationships in
order to repair the harm caused during interstate, intra-state, and residual violences, and to begin
negotiating a new shared social and political reality. It involves horizontal relationships between
people and groups, and vertical relationships between people and institutions.
We recognize four interdependent elements of reconciliation (Hamber & Kelly, 2009). These characteristics
include:
- Mutual acknowledgement of past suffering, non-repetition, and a commitment to repairing conflict-related
harms. Examples of reconciliation activities include supporting truth seeking and telling,
facilitating apology, offering reparations, and addressing trauma. (see Bloom[ield, 2003; de Greiff 2015;
Fischer, 2011; Hirsch, 2012; Verdeja, 2012) - Developing a vision for a shared and interdependent future. Reconciliation activities can serve as a
platform for adversarial parties and/or communities to negotiate, compromise, and progress toward a
new social contract based upon joint aspirations, human rights, and mutual dignity. (see Bland & Ross,
2018; Margalit, 2013; Villa-Vicencio & Doxtader, 2004). - Building positive relations across con[lict-era social divisions and transforming polarized identities.
Horizontal reconciliation activities may build trust between communities, (re)integrate former
combatants, and enable dialogue and storytelling. Vertically, reconciliation activities can facilitate
improved governance, enhance access to justice, and build trust between the state and citizens. (see
Aiken, 2013; Bar-Tal 2004; Kelman 2004; Schaap, 2006; Strömbom, 2016; Tajfel 1974). - Significant cultural, social, economic, and political change.
Reconciliation activities may address various dimensions of structural violence including historic
inequities, and colonial legacies, facilitate economic reform, establish new social norms, strengthen social
cohesion, and build inclusive institutions. (see Abu-Nimer, 2001; Aguilar & Gómez, 2011; Bloom[ield,
2003; Gready & Robins, 2014; Wright, Rolston & Aolá in 2022).
Alongside the challenge to clearly define reconciliation, there has been noted confusion about its relationship
with international law and transitional justice. The concept of justice in transition (later coined transitional
justice) emerged out of the legal responses to authoritarian rule in Latin America and Eastern Europe in the
late 1980s-90s (Nino, 1996; Teitel, 2000; Zalaquett, 1998). These processes were situated within
international law, a growing collection of treaties and agreements that governed relations between states.
During this era, justice was modified to support major political transformation and focused primarily on high-ranking
government officials and military leaders. It was rendered through a constellation of judicial
institutions including international, regional, and national courts, and truth commissions. Mechanisms
normally associated with these processes included prosecutions, truth-telling, lustrations, and different types
of amnesties (Kritz, 1995). Since then, global governance and the international legal landscape have grown
and developed significantly. For example, granting blanket amnesties may now be considered a violation of a
state’s duty to prosecute and punish gross human rights violations under major conventions and treaties.
Universal jurisdiction, the Rome Statute, and the International Criminal Court also suggest that amnesty
offered by a state for an international crime does not necessarily guarantee immunity from prosecution
(Lyons, 2010). Complex dynamics like these exist between the universal, global, and state dimensions of
authority, sovereignty, treaties, and rights. As a result, international legal frameworks have become implicated
in transitional justice processes in ways that both compel and challenge how peace agreements,
accountability, and reconciliation relate (Sharp, 2015).
Reconciliation is not a method or an instrument among many. It is an overall relationship-oriented process
that is integral to the application of international law and peace processes (Lederach, 1997; Bloomfield,
2003). When effective, it can serve as a bridge between justice and peace, the past and the future. Because
transitional justice is intertwined with international law and the changing nature of armed and political
conflict, it has continued to adapt. In more recent years, the boundaries of what is considered transitional
justice have moved well beyond political reconciliation or holding predecessor regimes accountable.
Currently, it is more broadly understood as the way societies respond to the legacies of widespread and
serious human rights violations (ICTJ, 2024). It aims at “providing recognition to victims of past abuse as
rights holders, enhancing trust between individuals in society and trust of individuals in State
institutions, and reinforcing respect for human rights and promoting the rule of law” (de Greiff, 2012. pg.
17). These processes have become multi-level and include bringing people together – not just political elites -
to address injustice and negotiate the future. Because reconciliation and peace have become increasingly tied
to accountability and fairness, conceptualizations of justice have also expanded. Greater emphasis is being
placed on distributive justice to deal with the causal factors of conflict. And reparative, restorative, and
transformative justices – not just retribution – are seen as critical pathways to social and political
transformation. As a result, state-to-citizen accountability, judicial and customary responses, dealing with
colonial legacies, the reconstruction of religious sites, provision of reparations to victims in the form of
financial compensation, restitution of property, or access to healthcare are all considered part of the
transitional justice portfolio and associated with reconciliation and peace (Bell, 2009; Mani, 2008).
Finally, and notably, the relationship between justice, forgiveness, reconciliation, and peace remains
controversial. During South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the term reconciliation became
associated with the process of forgiveness (Kriesberg, 2001; Philpott 2009, Rigby, 2005). Some experts have
argued that acknowledgement, remorse, mercy, and forgiveness encourage reconciliation (Lederach, 1995;
Tutu, 1999; Volf, 2000). Others, however, have detached the concept from its religious connotations and
theorized about it through various disciplinary lenses such as philosophy, political science, peace studies,
sociology, and social psychology (see: Brewer, 2022; Crocker, 2003; Kostić, 2007; Murphy, 2010; Murphy &
Hampton, 1999; Nordquist, 2017; Schaap, 2005; Valenzuela, 2019). Minow (1998) maintains that
reconciliation processes may not even lead to forgiveness, describing it as a power that only those who have
been victimized can claim. Especially in top down, state-driven efforts, linking these two concepts puts them
in danger of failing. “The right not to reconcile is a key issue in understanding some of the resistance victims feel
toward reconciliation, and one often forgotten by international actors as they blithely design post conflict
reconciliation processes in the abstract” (Bloomfield, 2006, pg. 24). Agonist views on reconciliation push even
further, arguing that forgiveness is not a realistic part of the transitional justice equation. Because deep divisions are so
difficult to overcome, the ‘thin’ goal of reconciliation is to turn violent enemies into non-violent adversaries who
continue to struggle, despite their histories and radical differences (Hirsch, 2012; Mitchell, 2023; Schapp, 2005;
Strömbom & Bramsen, 2022).
Critiques surrounding the concept of reconciliation continue. Debates about gender (Ni Aolá in & Turner,
2007; Pankhurst, 2007), multiculturalism (VanAntwerpen, 2008), spatiality (Bjö rkdahl & Hö glund, 2013; de
Coning, 2016), victim centered approaches (Brett, 2022; Robins, 2017), the politics of victimhood (Druliolle &
Brett, 2018) and the micro-politics of reconciliation (Firchow & Selim, 2022; MacGinty & Firchow, 2016) add
even more dimension to the meanings and complexities of reconciliation. What remains consistent
throughout the literatures is a focus on reconciliation as a process “through which a society moves from a
divided past to a shared future” in ways that encourage “shared suffering and collective responsibility”
(Bloomfield, 2003). Where there has been a loss of trust, inter-generational transmission of trauma and
grievances, chronic violence, and polarization – especially when antagonists live in close proximity – not
addressing these legacies may generate new spirals of violence and puts peace at risk.