Transitional justice discourse is generally accepted as having its foundations located in the theoretical, policy and practical implications of dealing with past human rights violations in societies that have experienced either repressive politics or violent conflict. Many theorists and policy-makers resolutely assume or defend the notion that ‘dealing with the past’ is where the debates about, and contribution of, the transitional justice paradigm uniquely lie.2 Understood in this way, transitional justice as a field of study has grown exponentially, comprising theoretical debates, the comparative assessment of domestic accountability schemes, international criminal justice, the study of truth commissions, and ethical-legal debate concerning the morality of compromise on accountability for gross and systematic violations of human rights.

This foreword, building on the previous work of its authors,3 extends and expands our contention that transitional justice in this narrow sense must be located in a broader and more problematised understanding of justice in contemporary transitions. We also use the opportunity provided by this symposium to highlight an expansion of conceptual horizons being carried out at the Transitional Justice Institute (University of Ulster), and the innovative approach to the transitional justice field being advanced by a group of diverse inter-disciplinary scholars. The approach advocates both drawing on other disciplines, and firmly supporting parallel disciplinary fields to work alongside a legal research agenda; affirming the importance of rigorous cross-jurisdictional comparisons; and utilising empirical and socio-legal methodology to advance legal inquiry.

In this article, I argue that the reclamation of language and the rediscovery of victims’ voices in post-conflict contexts are vital to the realisation of full human rights for all citizens, and necessary preludes to processes of truth recovery. Allowing and encouraging victims to engage in dialogue and public storytelling constitutes a crucial part of the transitional legal and political process. However, as a consequence of campaigns of political murder, torture and detention by oppressive regimes many victims of violence have been returned to a ‘pre-language’ state, in which the articulation of coherent individual and group histories has become increasingly difficult. I contend that enabling victims to reclaim language and narrate their stories is a crucial aspect of the legal, social and political ‘rebalancing project’ necessary in transitional societies to right the wrongs of the past.

The article aims to test the boundaries of traditional notions and understandings of citizenship and security in transitional societies through the framing of a given question – should paramilitary ex-prisoners be allowed to join the police? The question, considered through an examination of the particular experience of Northern Ireland, acts as a springboard to the deconstruction of broader traditional and transitional assumptions around citizenship and the delivery of security in societies seeking ways out of violent conflict. The article is ultimately concerned, not so much to deliver a final answer to the specifics of the question posed in all contexts, but to problematise notions of citizenship and State to the point where broader questions need to be asked around accepted and preconceived notions of inclusivity, citizenship and security.

Consociationalism is seen as a useful tool in dealing with intractable ethnic, religious, linguistic and other tensions in deeply divided societies and is often preferred over federalism, partition, secession, assimilation or other forms of conflict management in such societies. This article examines the validity of many of the assumptions which underlie the concept of consociationalism by looking at the experience of its use in the Pacific island state of Fiji, which has had a long record of strife between the country’s two main ethnic groups, the indigenous Fijians and the Indo-Fijians. It argues that the consociational model – particularly one which is highly prescriptive and involves strong mandatory power-sharing – has certain structural shortcomings which make it unsuitable for adoption in societies (like Fiji) where the ethnic or other cleavages run deep. In such cases, says the author, the society concerned would do well to explore other options such as a looser form of power-sharing, proportional representation, or outright majoritarian rule but with strong minority protections. The article also examines the limitations of judicial intervention in the enforcement of consociational agreements.

This article critically examines the prospects for achieving a comprehensive vision of gender justice in post-conflict transitional contexts. It is divided into three main sections. The first reviews the gendered limits of mainstream approaches to transitional justice and highlights gender biases in related dominant discourses, which shape how conflict, and transitions from conflict, are understood and enacted to the detriment of women. The second focuses on the benefits and limitations of engendering wartime criminal justice with particular reference to the International Criminal Court. The third considers the prospects for a more comprehensive approach to gender justice that shifts the emphasis from ‘women as victims’ of conflict to women as agents of transformation, through an examination of the significance of Security Council Resolution 1325. Ultimately, the author argues that achieving gender justice in transitions is inextricably tied to wider bottom-up efforts by women’s movements to realise a comprehensive vision of women’s human rights within a framework of critically-interpreted, universal, indivisible human rights.

The globalisation of transitional justice as a framework for the resolution of conflicts is a remarkable phenomenon of the post-Cold War era (Bell and Craig, 2000). In different contexts this framework has significant consequences for women’s equality. This article asserts that a conceptualisation of gender that intersects with other dimensions of inequality in state formation provides an important tool for understanding contemporary transitional justice processes. This complex tool of intersectional analysis is used to explore the issue of women’s equality in Northern Ireland’s transition. This is applied to the problems of women’s absence from negotiations and the silence in these negotiations on matters to do with women’s day-to-day lives. The Good Friday/Belfast Agreement and the enactment of the equality legislation enacted in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are the textual sites of analysis. These documents comprise the formal transitional framework for Northern Ireland. The article examines the theoretical tensions and practical implications inherent in universal claims for women’s equality in a situation where recognition of ‘difference’ is enshrined in both the equality legislation and the mechanisms for future democratic representation. The article concludes by suggesting that transitional justice discourse can benefit from the theoretical challenges posed by intersectionality and that social stability in NI and in other conflicted societies may be strengthened through addressing the corrosive impacts of inequality.