Project Description

Recent research in the field of transitional justice has increasingly called attention to debates about whether top-down (e.g. criminal tribunals/truth commissions) or bottom up post-conflict justice and reconciliation strategies (e.g. customary/grassroots processes) are more advantageous to pursue in the wake of mass atrocity. While these processes are generally viewed as necessary to deal with past wrongdoings, it remains unclear how participation in top-down vs. bottom-up processes impacts upon perceptions of security and socioeconomic cooperation in the local settings. In the larger project, we will undertake a structured-focused comparison of four settings that had varying approaches to post-conflict justice and reconciliation: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, Nicaragua, and Sierra Leone. Data will be collected through in-depth interviews with individuals affected by past violence who continue to live in the same communities. Given their continued proximity, understanding how each type of post-conflict strategy has impacted (if at all) the sense of security of these groups of individuals is of paramount importance for policy development and academic knowledge of how to best facilitate lasting peace after mass violence. Dr Holly Guthrey will focus on the case of Chile, including field research, within this project.

Holly Guthrey’s CV

The Foundation acknowledges that Holly Guthrey has successfully completed her project.