Resource Library

Throughout 2023, ICTJ’s experts have offered their unique perspective on breaking news around the globe as part of the World Report. Their insightful commentaries have brought into focus the impact these events have on victims of human right violations as well as larger struggles for peace and justice. In this edition, we look back on the past year through the Expert’s Choice column.

Five years ago, in August 2018, to mark his 100 days in office, Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan addressed a large rally in Yerevan’s Republic Square to officially announce his government’s intentions to incorporate transitional justice mechanisms into Armenian post-revolution reform agenda. Since then, Armenia has been pursuing a range of transitional justice initiatives alongside other democratic reforms, and it has made some limited headway, despite setbacks and major challenges including renewed conflict with Azerbaijan.

In little less than 10 months, Colombia has witnessed the creation of a completely new jurisdiction, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP). JEP has already opened two cases and three situations in its Chamber for the Acknowledgment of Truth and Responsibility.

Colombia’s new president Gustavo Petro was elected to office on a progressive campaign to strengthen democracy, implement social reforms, and bring “total peace” to the country. His approach to peace encompasses political negotiations with all remaining insurgent groups and simultaneous dialogues with criminal organizations geared toward their voluntary submission to justice in exchange for punitive leniency. But eight months into his administration, Petro’s efforts to deliver on his campaign promise are facing numerous challenges.

The political crisis in Venezuela seems to have reached a stalemate. In September, the Norway-mediated negotiations between the Maduro government and the opposition came to a halt, leaving both sides struggling for the upper hand. But since it remains difficult for either party to prevail, it is likely that this impasse is a momentary setback rather than an indication that the negotiations are defunct.

When reflecting on peace agreements and their implementation, it is tempting to begin by saying that these processes are generally slow and complex. While that may be true in many contexts, it contributes little to the discussion about what has happened in Colombia since the government signed a final peace deal in November 2016 with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC-EP—the oldest and largest guerrilla group in the county—that ostensibly ended 50 years of war.

On May 12, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers agreed to create a mechanism to receive claims for damages caused by the Russian crime of aggression in Ukraine. The new registry is intended to receive information on claims of damage, loss, or injury caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine since February 24, 2022 and assess their eligibility for future adjudication or compensation. Many of the register’s chief proponents are hailing its creation as a key step toward accountability for the many violations of international law that Russia has committed in or against Ukraine. However, the register alone will not be sufficient to address the multitude of harms caused by the war.

In the latest round of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, the Turkish president called on both delegations to act responsibly and agree to a ceasefire. He reminded them of their historical mission to achieve a "just peace." While we may not know how and when this conflict will end, we already know some of what Ukrainian society will be grappling with in the near future. Significant portions of country’s civilian infrastructure have been destroyed. More than 4 million Ukrainians are now refugees; another 10 million are internally displaced; and a rising but still undetermined number have been killed, are missing, or are wounded. The real question is what does a just peace mean for Ukrainians.

The United Nations Security Council has considered transitional justice on several occasions in the past and included many of its components in country-specific resolutions, and also stressed the links between transitional justice and the other items on its thematic agenda including women, peace and security, and children and armed conflict, and it has made explicit reference to transitional justice as a key part of efforts to sustain peace. Yet, on February 13, the Security Council held its first open debate focusing solely on transitional justice.

On October 31, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Sochi to discuss steps to normalize relations between Yerevan and Baku and a longer-term peace deal that would finally end the decades-long, on-and-off conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. This willingness on both sides to come to the negotiating table is without question welcome news. However, the two parties seem to want to talk about peace on different terms and without addressing core human rights issues in their respective countries in connection with the conflict.