Peace versus Justice: A False Dichotomy? Mapping Tensions and Complementarities between Conflict Resolution and Human Rights Advocacy in Afghanistan

Abstract

In the aftermath of a conflict, peace and justice are often seen to be in direct tension. Demands for justice and legal accountability can be an obstacle to peace, since peace accords may involve compromises with war criminals and human rights perpetrators. The peace versus justice debate therefore translates into a conceptual struggle between conflict resolution and human rights advocacy. In Afghanistan, peace and conflict are often seen as inherently conflicting. Justice, it is often argued, must wait until security has been established. Rather than punishing the perpetrators of past war crimes, the Karzai government has accommodated some of the most notorious warlords, by appointing them to some government positions. While it was long thought that this would have a stabilizing effect, this paper argues that the policy of relying on Afghanistan's warlords-cum-politicians has failed to bring lasting security, peace and stability to the country. This paper presents a brief foray into the field of peace and transitional justice in a fragmented 21st century Afghanistan.