Rethinking Justice in Transitional Justice: An Examination of the Mãori Conception and Customary Mechanism of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a relatively young field of academic inquiry, the transitional justice scholarship presents some important difficulties, not least of which is its lack of critical evaluation of the approaches to justice it adopts and promotes. This research argues that the framework used in the transitional justice scholarship is ill-suited to account for, and to think about, the philosophy of justice embodied in customary mechanisms of justice. It explains that the type of “justice” embodied in customary mechanisms of justice is difficult to appreciate by using the retributive, reparative, and the restorative approaches. These Western, individualistic and legally based approaches are often antithetical to the conception of “justice” embodied in customary mechanisms of justice. This study is substantiated with an examination of the Mãori tradition and justice practices. It conceptualizes the type of justice that is embodied in traditional mechanisms of justice as a form of “relational justice,” which is described as an approach to doing justice that prioritizes relationships. This study argues that this is based on the primacy of communal well-being. It also discusses the implications research findings have for the field of transitional justice. That is, it addresses the problematic propensity of the scholarship to see the rule of law as the “end all, be all,” and to use it as a benchmark against which all other justice practices are to be measured. This research also takes the opportunity to push the boundaries of the transitional justice literature further by speaking to the need to revise the common understanding of what constitutes a transitional society.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".