Transitional Justice in Established Democracies: Analysis of the Canadian, South African, and Chilean experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last four decades, theories and mechanisms of transitional justice have been formulated and implemented in numerous countries, forming an interdisciplinary theoretical and practical corpus. This paper proposes to expand the scope of transitional justice so that it can be applied in stable democracies. The proposed reformulation could be useful to address structural injustices affecting indigenous peoples, that are a legacy of colonialism and assimilationist policies, and to address acts of state repression that constitute serious human rights violations. These reflections are formulated on the basis of three recent case studies: 1) from the Canadian experience, the Royal Commission on Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls are analyzed; 2) from South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Constituent Process and the Land Reform are discussed; and 3) from the Chilean case, the link between social unrest and transitional justice, as well as the Constituent Process, are explained.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".