Post-conflict justice mechanisms such as truth commissions, war crimes tribunals and reparations programs have emerged as a fundamental building block of durable peace settlements in Latin America, Africa and Asia. They are relatively rare, however, in Muslim countries recovering from conflict—despite the fact that social and criminal justice is a fundamental principle of Islamic law.

pb 87

Summary

  • Post-conflict justice mechanisms such as truth commissions, war crimes tribunals and reparations programs have emerged as a fundamental building block of durable peace settlements in Latin America, Africa and Asia. They are relatively rare, however, in Muslim countries recovering from conflict—despite the fact that social and criminal justice is a fundamental principle of Islamic law.
  • While much scholarship has been devoted to explaining the legal basis for transitional justice and studying its implementation and impact in the West, little if any scholarly attention has been paid to these issues in the Islamic legal context—a significant gap in light of recent popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.
  • To address this gap—and to stimulate thinking about how post-conflict justice issues can be better incorporated into peace processes in Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia – USIP sponsored a workshop involving 35 scholars and practitioners in international and Islamic law to address whether there are any fundamental incompatibilities between the Shari’a and related texts and established international law (often viewed as “Western”) concepts of post-conflict justice.
  • Participants largely agreed that broadly speaking, the principles of Islamic law align with international legal norms of truth, accountability and compensation for victims of mass crimes and human rights abuse—though what constitutes the Shari’a and why many Muslim governments fail to implement these norms were the subject of robust debate. More scholarship is needed, however, to explore specific Islamic legal issues such as the applicability of international treaties, justifications and humanitarian rules for armed conflict, and the obligation of states to pursue justice on behalf of its citizens.
  • Given the essential compatibility of Islamic law and post-conflict justice norms, the explanation for why victims of atrocities in Muslim-majority countries seldom see justice after conflicts owes more to problems of poor governance, a general absence of the rule of law in affected countries and human development deficits than to Islamic legal thinking.
  • Participants agreed it would be important for interdisciplinary scholars and practitioners from across the Muslim world to establish an authoritative set of basic Islamic legal principles that support institutional approaches to truth seeking, accountability and justice as relevant to post-conflict justice demands in Islamic societies.

About this Brief

This brief summarizes the first of its kind workshop on Post-Conflict Justice and Islam held in Washington, DC on November 5, 2010, which was jointly sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences (ISISC) and Syracuse University’s Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT). This conference explored the legal basis for transitional justice in the Islamic context and how post-conflict justice issues can be better incorporated into peace processes in Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia. Scott Worden is a senior rule of law adviser for the U.S. Institute of Peace. Shani Ross and Whitney May Parker are research fellows at the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT) at Syracuse University. Sahar Azar is a juris doctor candidate at Syracuse University College of Law.

Related Publications

How to Revive an Afghan Peace Process

How to Revive an Afghan Peace Process

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

By: USIP Staff

The halt to U.S. peace talks with the Taliban, announced September 7 by President Trump, should be used as a starting point for new negotiations, according to U.S. and Afghan specialists. The United States and Afghans have a chance to shape a new phase of talks to maximize the possibilities for a peace accord that Afghans can accept, the experts said at USIP. Some urged resuming talks as quickly as possible. Others argued for focusing first on unifying non-Taliban Afghans following the planned September 28 elections, and on exploiting war fatigue among the Taliban.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: Alex Thier

While the negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban were recently thrown-off course, a peace agreement among Afghans remains an urgent priority. The U.S.-led negotiations over a phased drawdown of U.S. troops in exchange for a Taliban commitment to eschew terrorism and engage in intra-Afghan negotiations took nearly a year. Yet these talks excluded the Afghan government and other political elites and didn’t address the fundamental question of what it will take for Afghans to put a sustainable end to four decades of war: how will power be shared?

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: William Byrd

As the United States has pursued peace talks with the Taliban, international discussions continue on the economic aid that will be vital to stabilizing Afghanistan under any peace deal. Yet the Afghan government has been mostly absent from this dialogue, an exclusion exemplified this week by a meeting of the country’s main donors to strategize on aid—with Afghan officials left out. The government’s marginalization, in large part self-inflicted, is a danger to the stabilization and development of Afghanistan. In the interests of Afghans, stability in the region and U.S. hopes for a sustainable peace, this rift in the dialogue on aid needs to be repaired.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

By: USIP Staff; Andrew Wilder

President Trump’s weekend announcement of a halt to U.S. peace talks with Afghanistan’s Taliban—including a previously unannounced U.S. plan for a Camp David meeting to conclude that process—leaves the future of the Afghanistan peace process unclear. USIP’s Andrew Wilder, a longtime Afghanistan analyst, argues that, rather than declaring an end to the peace process, U.S. negotiators could use the setback as a moment to clarify the strategy, and then urgently get the peace process back on track before too much momentum is lost.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

View All Publications