LAUSR

Transitional justice measures are frequently expected to help promote peace in conflict-affected countries, through measures that rely heavily upon legal or legalized processes such as trials and commissions of inquiry. They are also often expected to influence or promote reform in legal processes and institutions, including the judiciary, the constitution, and legislation, in ways that are expected to help promote peace in future post-conflict states. However, not only is the evidence of the role of law in promoting peace through transitional justice a mixed one, but more importantly, the emphasis on transitional justice often overlooks the ways in which law is expected to play a role in promoting peace more broadly and in ways intertwined with transitional justice, through rule of law promotion, often by international actors, and through peace agreements that include specific institutional and governance measures, including power-sharing arrangements. These rule of law and governance measures similarly have a mixed record with regard to their effects for either short- or long-term peace. Closer analysis of the role of law and legalized mechanisms in producing or supporting peace is needed, including analysis of the types of law and mechanisms deployed. Drawing on fieldwork in Sierra Leone, Uganda, Colombia, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and Sudan, among others, this paper will elaborate on the challenges of using law for peace via governance and rule of law measures, as well as through transitional justice.