Does Transitional Justice Conflict with Civil Peace in Syria?

SadaNews - The relationship between transitional justice and civil peace represents one of the most complex post-conflict challenges, particularly in contexts where calls for accountability intersect with the necessities of stability and social reconstruction; in the Syrian case, after more than 14 years of a conflict characterized by systematic abuses and societal fragmentation, this intersection acquires special significance.

Transitional justice is a set of processes and mechanisms through which societies address the legacy of widespread violations, while civil peace is understood as a state of harmony and cooperation that goes beyond mere absence of violence. This dual framework reveals deep integrations and inherent tensions.

This article seeks to analyze how these two conceptual systems intersect and unite, and at times diverge, in the Syrian transitional landscape, exploring the theoretical foundations governing their convergence while simultaneously recognizing the challenges that arise when the necessities of justice meet the necessities of peacebuilding.

Areas of Convergence and Temporal Integration

The conceptual foundation of transitional justice involves multiple interconnected mechanisms to collectively address past violations and establish the foundations for future coexistence; these mechanisms include: criminal prosecutions as a traditional tool for accountability, truth commissions that build shared narratives about historical violations, reparations programs that acknowledge the suffering of victims, and institutional reforms that transform the structures enabling systematic violations.

Each mechanism operates within distinct temporal and procedural frameworks, yet they integrate into a comprehensive approach to social transformation. The Syrian Network for Human Rights formulated a comprehensive vision for the path of transitional justice in Syria last April through detailed roadmaps emphasizing the interconnection of these mechanisms.

In contrast, the concept of civil peace transcends the mere cessation of hostilities to a multidimensional approach operating at individual, community, and national levels.

At the individual level, civil peace manifests in pathways of psychological recovery and reintegration; at the community level, it appears in rebuilding trust and restoring the torn social fabric; at the national level, it requires the re-establishment of the social contract between citizens and state institutions.

This broad vision emphasizes long-term stability, making violence an inconceivable reality, not merely repressed.

The convergence between the two frameworks is evident through multiple theoretical intersections; both approaches aim for a transformation from conditions of violence to sustainable coexistence, sharing goals of violence prevention, reconciliation, and establishing peace.

Temporal integration emerges as a critical factor: transitional justice addresses historical grievances, while civil peace mechanisms focus on building future relationships, and this temporal synergy allows communities to address past violations in parallel with building the capacities needed for peaceful conflict management.

Institutional and procedural synergies further enhance this convergence through a shared focus on civil society engagement, local ownership, and inclusive processes; research indicates seven key functions of civil society that deeply intersect with the objectives of transitional justice: protection, monitoring, advocacy, socialization, social cohesion, facilitation, and service provision.

These functional overlaps create natural points of integration where civil peace initiatives and transitional justice mechanisms support and reinforce each other.

Moreover, both frameworks recognize that structural transformation is a prerequisite for sustainable peace; civil peace initiatives focus on violence prevention through long-term capacity building and gradual social transformation, while transitional justice mechanisms, particularly institutional reform, aim to alter the conditions that allowed past violations to occur.

This shared focus on addressing root causes rather than merely treating symptoms results in a fundamental alignment between the two approaches, making their integration not only a practical necessity but also a theoretical consistency.

Dismantling the Myth of the "Peace versus Justice" Dichotomy

Despite the points of convergence between transitional justice and civil peace, their relationship reveals theoretical and practical tensions that warrant careful examination; its most prominent manifestations are what researchers refer to as the "peace versus justice dilemma," where demands for accountability and legal prosecution may appear to contradict urgent stability requirements.

This tension generates challenges in public decision-making, as authorities must balance the urgent requirements of peace with the imperatives of justice, often leading to assumed contradictions between the two objectives.

Temporal and procedural complexities exacerbate this tension; transitional justice mechanisms, particularly criminal prosecutions, typically require long periods for investigation and adjudication, whereas civil peace initiatives prioritize processes that yield immediate stability.

These temporal differences may lead to tangible procedural contradictions: rapid stabilization measures may undermine the dynamics of systematic justice, while prolonged judicial processes may be viewed as destabilizing fragile peace arrangements.

However, contemporary literature undermines this dualistic perspective and considers it a false dichotomy; it posits that ignoring mass crimes, failing to address the root causes of conflict, and neglecting victims' demands for redress keep the risks of renewed violence high. Consequently, peace and justice are understood as interdependent objectives that reinforce each other's sustainability and fortify their outcomes.

Civil society emerges as an important actor mediating between these two frameworks; its organizations play multiple roles, including protecting populations, monitoring violations, and facilitating dialogue at various levels.

These mediatory functions help bridge the gaps between formal justice mechanisms and community-based peace initiatives, allowing spaces where both objectives can be achieved without mutual undermining.

The national context and cultural sensitivity take center stage as success factors; both frameworks emphasize local ownership and adaptation to social specificities, while upholding universal references for peace and justice.

This shared focus on "localization" provides a structural basis for integration, ensuring that solutions are tailored to specific environments while maintaining general principles.

The Syrian context particularly illustrates the challenges of this integration; institutional fragmentation, manifested in the proliferation of committees dealing with disparate aspects of issues without clear coordinating frameworks, poses risks of overlapping mandates and duplicated efforts.

The intermingling of civil peace initiatives with judicial fields, as seen in some practices of the Civil Peace Committee in the Syrian coast, reveals how misunderstanding the integrative nature of these two frameworks can undermine the goals of both justice and peace.

When civil peace committees exceed their facilitative roles to exercise judicial powers without legal justification, they infringe on the principle of separation of powers and weaken the community trust necessary for accountability and reconciliation.

Conclusion: Integration as a Necessity for Reconstruction

The theoretical examination of civil peace and transitional justice reveals that these two concepts, rather than forming competing models, embody integrated dimensions of post-conflict recovery that require meticulous coordination to achieve sustainable transformation.

The Syrian case illustrates that the pursuit of civil peace without meeting justice requirements, or advancing accountability without considering stability ramifications, threatens to undermine both objectives.

The specified areas of convergence (shared transformation goals, temporal integration, institutional synergy, and structural focus) provide a theoretical foundation for integrative approaches that recognize justice and peace as mutually reinforcing rather than opposing forces.

The tensions emerging between these two frameworks, particularly the perceived "peace versus justice dilemma," reflect less of a contradiction than the implementation challenges that require advanced approaches accommodating the legitimate concerns of both paths.

Overcoming false dichotomies requires the recognition that sustainable peace cannot be built on unaddressed injustices, just as true justice cannot be realized in contexts of chronic instability.

In this context, civil society plays a crucial mediating role, alongside emphasizing local ownership and cultural adaptation, providing practical avenues for constructively dealing with these tensions.

For the transitional process in Syria to succeed, theoretical visions must inspire practical approaches that maintain clear institutional boundaries while ensuring coordination, respect judicial independence while facilitating community dialogue, and address past violations parallel with building the capacity for future coexistence.

Therefore, integrating civil peace and transitional justice is a practical necessity for communities striving to transform the legacy of violence into foundations for lasting peace.

This integration requires a profound understanding of both frameworks' contributions, limits, and interconnections, acknowledging that neither is sufficient on its own to advance the complex task of rebuilding Syrian society after conflict.