A Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence led by the University of Maryland

A consortium of researchers dedicated to improving the understanding of the human causes and consequences of terrorism

Conflict Management, Transitional Justice and De-radicalization – Different, But Common Goals


Conflict Management, Transitional Justice and De-radicalization – Different, But Common Goals

Abstract: 

The aim of this working paper is to explore common issues between the process of reconciliation in post-conflict societies, negotiations and the renouncement of violent means. This paper brings forward the argument that reconciliation, negotiations as well as disengagement or de-radicalization processes are important for a non-violent communication between extremists and the society they should re-integrate. Re-opening communication channels after terrorist violence can help to build trust and chance former conflict party’s mindsets. Comparing the principles of victim-oriented instruments of transitional justice to the disengagement process of perpetrators demonstrates some reasons for successful collective disengagement. Furthermore, especially amnesties, ore milder punishment are important incentives for negotiations and disengagement. This is often evaluated as unjust by victims and may suppress a further truth-finding process. Choosing completive restorative justice instruments like public apologies and public discussions in truth-finding processes can increase justice for victims and makes de-radicalization processes more lasting.

Publication Information

Full Citation: 

Mühlhausen, Anna. 2016. "Conflict Management, Transitional Justice and De-radicalization – Different, But Common Goals." Journal for Deradicalization (October). http://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/view/78

Publication URL: 
Visit Website

Additional Info

Regions: