The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Armed conflict and post-conflict justice, 1946–2006
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Conflict Recurrence and Postconflict Justice: Addressing Motivations and Opportunities for Sustainable Peace (2017) · cites this paper as Binningsbø et al. 2012
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Conflict Recurrence and Postconflict Justice: Addressing Motivations and Opportunities for Sustainable Peace (2017) · cites this paper as Binningsbø and Loyle 2012
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Conflict Recurrence and Postconflict Justice: Addressing Motivations and Opportunities for Sustainable Peace (2017) · cites this paper as Binningsbø et al. 2012
Citations
Cites
Armed Conflict 1946-2001: A New Dataset
GLEDITSCH, N. P., WALLENSTEEN, P., ERIKSSON, M., SOLLENBERG, M., & STRAND, H. (2002) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343302039005007 · Cited by 3,846 · cited 5×
“By building upon the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset (Gleditsch et al., 2002), our data, by design, relate directly to a prominent conflict dataset.”
MethodInfluentialJournal of Conflict Resolution
(n.d.) · Max Planck Digital Library · Cited by 1,544
Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2006) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400837694 · Cited by 868
Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations
Freedman, L. D., Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2006) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20032164 · Cited by 798
Walter, B. F. (2002) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400824465 · Cited by 793
Monitoring Trends in Global Combat: A New Dataset of Battle Deaths
Lacina, B., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2005) · European Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie · doi:10.1007/s10680-005-6851-6 · Cited by 784
Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars
Ikenberry, G. J., & Walter, B. F. (2002) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20033178 · Cited by 753
How and when armed conflicts end: Introducing the UCDP Conflict Termination dataset
Kreutz, J. (2010) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343309353108 · Cited by 676
Does Peacekeeping Keep Peace? International Intervention and the Duration of Peace After Civil War
Fortna, V. P. (2004) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00301.x · Cited by 673
Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice
Snyder, J., & Vinjamuri, L. (2004) · International Security · doi:10.1162/016228803773100066 · Cited by 644
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Elster, 2010, Justice, Truth, Peace
- Lincoln Agreement, 1998, Lincoln Agreement on Peace, Security and Development on Bougainville
- Loyle, 2011, Peace and/or justice: Post-conflict justice and conflict reoccurrence
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–104 of 104
Forgive and forget? Why victims need and demand retributive justice after mass violence
Pham, P. N., Shay, C. W., & Vinck, P. (2026) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1093/jopres/xjag033
McAuliffe, P. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27828-0_10024-1
Themnér, A., & Biaba, R. (2026) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2026.107566
Leib, J. (2026) · Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding · doi:10.1080/17502977.2026.2706958
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- Licence
- 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
