Managerialism at the United Nations

One of the most significant developments in the field of transitional justice is the shift from national to international content creation regarding what constitutes a transitional injustice and how to address it. This is the story about that shift, how the United Nations (UN) went from observing to supporting and then managing transitional justice efforts. This chapter is divided into four parts. First, the UN’s initial observation of and support for national transitional justice efforts is summarized. Second, the shift from national to international content creation in this field is traced. It is argued that the UN achieved this shift through a combination of four techniques: blurring the distinction between hard and soft international laws; thickening these international norms; asserting the hegemony of these norms; and assuming the authority to administer them. Third, injustices marginalized by the UN’s transitional justice regime are fleshed out. It is argued that the UN’s understanding of transitional justice excludes four overlapping categories of injustices in transitioning societies: distributive injustices; systemic injustices; “ordinary” criminal injustices; and transitional injustices addressed through “ordinary” laws or politics. Finally, it is demonstrated that, while significantly increasing its management of transitions, the UN has nevertheless maintained a narrow and historically contingent understanding of transitional justice. This combination of administrative expansion and regime stability has been possible through the UN’s creation of distinct conceptual baskets that neighbor transitional justice—rule of law, non-recurrence, and addressing the root causes of conflict—and allocating interventions in transitioning societies to them.