Cited by 104War, Law, and JusticePeacebuilding and International SecurityPolitical Conflict and Governance

Armed conflict and post-conflict justice, 1946–2006

Binningsbø, Helga Malmin, Loyle, Cyanne E, Gates, Scott, Elster, Jon·2012·Journal of Peace Research

Abstract

This article introduces a new dataset on post-conflict justice (PCJ) that provides an overview of if, where, and how post-conflict countries address the wrongdoings committed in association with previous armed conflict. Motivated by the literature on post-conflict peacebuilding, we study justice processes during post-conflict transitions. We examine: which countries choose to implement PCJ; where PCJ is implemented; and which measures are taken in post-conflict societies to address past abuse. Featuring justice and accountability processes, our dataset focuses solely on possible options to address wrongdoings that are implemented following and relating to a given armed conflict. These data allow scholars to address hypotheses regarding justice following war and the effect that these institutions have on transitions to peace. This new dataset includes all extrasystemic, internationalized internal, and internal armed conflicts from 1946 to 2006, with at least 25 annual battle-related deaths as coded by the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset. The post-conflict justice (PCJ) efforts included are: trials, truth commissions, reparations, amnesties, purges, and exiles. By building upon the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset, scholars interested in PCJ can include variables regarding the nature of the conflict itself to test how PCJ arrangements work in different environments in order to better address the relationships between justice, truth, and peace in the post-conflict period.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022343312450886

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Scholars analyzing data on transitional justice have found little evidence that these mechanisms prevent former autocrats from reasserting political dominance or matter for democracy in the long run.

    “Yet scholars analyzing data on transitional justice have found little evidence that these mechanisms make a difference in preventing former autocrats from reasserting their political dominance (Olsen, Payne, and Reiter 2010a; Binningsbø et al. 2012) or that they matter for democracy in the long run (Olsen, Payne, and Reiter 2010a; Van der Merwe, Baxter, and Chapman 2009; Thoms, Ron, and Paris 2010”

    From Accountability by Numbers: A New Global Transitional Justice Dataset (1946–2016) (2020) · cites this paper as Binningsbø et al. 2012

  • The PCJ dataset represents the most comprehensive coding of conflict-related justice processes both in terms of temporal scope and process type as it collects data on six postconflict justice types from 1946 through 2006.

    “First, the PCJ dataset represents the most comprehensive coding of conflict-related justice processes both in terms of temporal scope and process type as it collects data on six postconflict justice types from 1946 through 2006.”
  • Special attention was paid to coding target and sender in the PCJ dataset; this information was coded directly from the news reports and supplemental materials used to code the postconflict justice process.

    “Special attention was paid to coding target and sender in the PCJ dataset; this information was coded directly from the news reports and supplemental materials used to code the postconflict justice process (Binningsbø and Loyle 2012).”
  • The PCJ dataset codes the process-specific variables necessary to test the hypotheses, such as the sender and target of each process.

    “Finally, the PCJ dataset codes the process-specific variables necessary to test our hypotheses, such as the sender and target of each process (discussed further below).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Binningsbø, H. M., Loyle, C. E., Gates, S., & Elster, J.
Affiliations
  • Peace Research Institute Oslo (NO)
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Collège de France (FR)
Venue
Journal of Peace Research
Published
2012-09-01
Volume
49
Issue
5
Pages
731-740
ISSN
  • 0022-3433 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3578
OpenAlex
W2128014874
Cited by
104
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
26.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Peace Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • United States Institute of Peace
  • Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet
  • Norges Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › War, Law, and Justice
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Peacebuilding and International Security
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
Keywords
post-conflict justice, armed conflict, post-conflict peacebuilding, transitional justice, truth commissions, reparations, amnesty, purges, exile, accountability, internal armed conflict, peace and justice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review