The concept of transitional justice has expanded over time both theoretically and in its application. Starting as a concept of transition from authoritarian rule into consolidated democracy, it evolved into an umbrella term for set of mechanisms and policies applied also to cases of transition from conflict into peace and social reconstruction. It seems that in cases of transition from violent conflict the retributive aspect of transitional justice got predominance over restorative mechanisms, while the expectation that it would lead to democratic consolidation (and social cohesion necessary for it) remained the same.
Another presumption of broad transitional justice literature is that combined processes of fact-finding and truth-telling are eventually leading to recognition and acceptance of knowledge on troubling past that would help in rebuilding social cohesion.
However, the narrow application of the concept in the case of former Yugoslav countries, focused predominantly on legal trials against war criminals before ICTY and local courts (marginalising other transitional justice measures), has led to disappointing results of public denial of responsibility, lack of victims recognition, competition in self-victimisation and dominance of the conflicting narratives of the war (often based on manipulated facts), all of which has been noted by the researchers and activists in the field.
Following the local media coverage of the legal trials and other transitional justice initiatives the paper deconstructs how the established fact and legal narratives were (mis)reproduced, distorted and situated within larger narratives of the last war and greater historical meta-narratives. The research also traces the pattern of silencing through the lack of report on particular transitional justice events.
The narratives of war and local history make established factual truths (in Arendtian sense) intelligible (in Ricoeurian sense) to local audience in such a way that they avoid responsibility of the own group and deny recognition of victimisation of the Other. Thus, instead of collective memory being shaped by trials (Osiel 1997), the actual force of memory creation lays in distorted (re)interpretation of the legal trials in the public sphere. In addition, the historical narratives are here figuring as ethnic markers, intrinsically tying perception of the past with the sense of national identity, while making the rejection of the narrative equal to self-excommunication from the national group.
The results of transitional justice achievements are curbed when translated to local public dominated by historical narratives that played part in instigating the very war, paper concludes. At the same time the paper draws attention to other diverse mechanisms of transitional justice that could open space for dialogue that would challenge the dominant manipulated narratives of the past (particularly truth commissions, public testimonies and symbolic reparations).
