Do Amnesties Preclude Justice?

Abstract

A common trend among recent peace processes is the use of amnesty agreements as a mechanism to restore the rule of law and bring democracy back to the country. However, the international community is still reluctant to endorse them. Both human rights advocates and international organizations such as the United Nations have vehemently opposed the choice of amnesty. However, for others, amnesty agreements are still a legitimate and plausible way to achieve peace and even justice. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine the “paradoxical question” of whether amnesty agreements require peace at the expense of justice. Specifically, it purports to study whether amnesty agreements can aid or contribute in the achievement of justice, especially when the agreement is coupled by alternative justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions, reparations, and vetting.
Section 1 of this paper will address the definition of amnesty agreements; section 2 will approach the “changing” perception the international community has given to them; section 3 will propose a definition of justice to be used for purposes of this paper; and section 4 will analyze the South African and the East Timor case, as two different examples of how amnesties can be applied in peace processes and to what extent both countries accomplished to bring justice to their people. The cases of South Africa, East Timor were chosen; primarily because of the way they applied amnesty in order to pursue a certain purpose. Though each of these cases shows several caveats, they help to understand how amnesty agreements may be applicable in different contexts and may be implemented in different ways to reach different outcomes, and ultimately justice.