A Truth Commission for Northern Ireland?

This week the BBC has been focusing on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. The most startling thing about this debate has been how issues have been narrowed before genuine discussion has started. Concepts like truth and justice have been bandied about as if they were mutually exclusive and as if they meant the same to everyone.

The South African model has been used as a benchmark for discussion, with little recognition of what it was about. The other twenty or so truth commissions, in societies as diverse as Ghana, Peru, Argentina, Chile and Sierra Leone, have meanwhile been ignored.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, it seems we all should have an opinion on whether there should be a truth commission for Northern Ireland. Ground work already done on these issues has been neglected, and more measured approaches circumvented.

Debate on this issue is vital, and the more the better. But some key points have been lost in the media circus.

First, dealing with decades of conflict is long-term, complex and time-consuming. It cannot be summed up in a few interviews or emails. It will not entail a single approach or model. International lessons suggest it takes decades. We should not look for any quick fixes.

We should not rush into opinions on different methods before we have agreed that remembering, acknowledgement, truth and justice are important issues for victims and society at large. We must interrogate what we mean by these terms and debate our different perspectives.

The past can only be dealt with if all concerned enter the debate in an inclusive way, aimed at entrenching peace. We should not underestimate the importance of getting this right, ensuring that the discussion is aimed at reconciliation and not point-scoring.

If we do not first agree the underlying principles, all discussion will be contorted and subject to political wrangling. This will ultimately result in mechanisms that will continue the conflict by different means, rather than finding ways constructively to resolve it.

The most extensive consultation on this issue to date has been carried out by the Healing Through Remembering Project. This sought to document possible mechanisms and realisable options for how remembering should occur, so that healing could take place for all those affected. This took two years of discussion.

Importantly, this consultation was run by a board reflecting a range of very diverse backgrounds. The project received over 100 written submissions and recorded thousands of hits on its website.

Many submissions endorsed the value of remembering and spoke of the importance of finding ways to move society forward. But others expressed concerns about the potential pitfalls. The idea of remembering also evoked an emotional response, indicative of much hurt and unresolved pain. The project’s recommendations include a focus on truth recovery, but extend well beyond it.

This is the second point: dealing with the past needs to be seen as wider than a truth-recovery process. Any such mechanism should run alongside other initiatives, such as storytelling, a living museum about the conflict, an annual day of reflection and a network of commemoration projects. Many community projects are also part of the picture.

In the same vein, although victims are central in dealing with the past, thorough engagement demands a focus on the entire society. This is vital when considering the issue of responsibility for the hurts suffered.

It was pointed out in several of the submissions that the need to revisit the past was not confined to those who saw themselves as primarily involved in the conflict: politicians, victims and those who carried out violent acts. For any collective remembering to be helpful it needs to engage the entire society and particularly those who saw themselves as ‘uninvolved'. The whole society has a responsibility to deal with the past.

Thirdly, the Healing Through Remembering Project does recommend that a formal truth-recovery process should be given careful consideration, though only as one part of dealing with the past. But it stipulates that an important first step is a process of acknowledgement, by all, of acts of commission and/or omission.

Political parties, the British and Irish states, republican and loyalist paramilitaries and other institutions would all need fully to acknowledge the extent of their particular culpability. In fact, we should all consider what we have done and have not done to prevent loss of life. Sincere acknowledge

ment is the key foundation for exploring truth recovery in an even-tempered, self-effacing and responsible manner.

Published by Brandon Hamber, Democratic Dialogue, 11 June 2003

Brandon Hamber works as an independent consultant to the Healing Through Remembering Project and is a research associate of Democratic Dialogue in Belfast.

Advocacy Services Research Report

 Today the Commission for Victims and Survivors of Northern Ireland (CVSNI) and Ulster University (INCORE & TJI) launched the Advocacy Services Report focusing on advocacy and dealing with the past. The report was authored by Dr Maire Braniff, Professor Brandon Hamber, Dr Catherine O'Rourke, Dr Philip McCready and Dr John Bell. 

The Report found that while the needs of victims and survivors are not homogenous there are core principles that underpin effective service provision. Essentially they should be victim-led, build trust, not create dependency, be compassionate and empathetic and value the lived experience and perspective of the individual. The groups offering advocacy were led by such principles. Further provision for dealing with the past should draw on and learn from the scale, diversity and experience of advocacy practice to date. 

Equally, however, our research found that this was challenging work. There was unanimity amongst all service users and service providers that the biggest challenge was the systemic delay and the slow nature of legacy investigation and information recovery. The biggest scope for improvement in advocacy services was the accessibility of information and more streamlined and quicker responses from statutory agencies. 

• Download the Full Report
• Download the 4 Page Summary

Amnesty a line in the sand? It’s not even close

If we know anything about the Johnson government in the UK, they are not great at sticking to agreements or taking the views of the devolved nations seriously. The recent statement by the Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, proposing new legislation to enforce a statute of limitations for all conflict-related violations in Northern Ireland fits this mould.

In July 2019, following a 15-month consultation on the legacy proposal in the Stormont House Agreement (SHA) of 2014 agreed by all political parties, the British Government committed to its full implementation. Two years later, it is now proposing to pull the SHA apart.

The recent proposals remove a focus on justice and investigation, favouring information recovery and storytelling under an undefined banner of reconciliation. All of Northern Ireland’s five main political parties, the Irish government, civil society organisations and most victims’ groups are heavily critical of what amounts to an amnesty for conflict-era offences. Yet, the views of the people of Northern Ireland, and especially victims of both state and non-state violence, seem to matter little.

Ostensibly, Northern Ireland victims are less important than a Tory manifesto pledge to stop so-called “vexatious” legal cases against former British soldiers, even if the price is also a paramilitary amnesty.

Yet, the actual case for amnesty in Lewis’ statement is rather flimsy.

Firstly, Lewis points out that criminal investigations are increasingly unlikely to deliver in court. We know as time passes this is not incorrect. But because justice is unlikely, should prosecutions be abandoned? Could we imagine doing the same for other crimes such as rape because it has a low conviction rate? Choosing to abandon prosecution is not a logistical issue but a political one.

Secondly, it is stated that the current system is not working. But there is no current system. It is a mishmash of processes. No systematic and over-arching attempt has been made to deal with the past in Northern Ireland, despite a set of agreed proposals being put forward in the SHA.

Thirdly, it is implied that amnesty is the only viable route. Yet the British consultation on the SHA points out that the overwhelming view from the 17,000 responses was that amnesty was not appropriate. Two years ago, it was perfectly feasible for the other SHA mechanisms such as storytelling and information recovery to run alongside justice processes, yet suddenly this is off the table.

There are other options under discussion. For example, British soldiers remain eligible for the same deal as paramilitaries in terms of early release under the Belfast Agreement. If convicted, a maximum of two years can be served for conflict crimes. A discussion on reducing the length of this requirement to zero is an option. More radically, another option is to consider amnesty in exchange for truth as per the South African model.

Finally, Lewis argues that it is the criminal justice process that is hampering reconciliation. Is the implication that offering a blanket amnesty will lead to those who committed crimes miraculously coming forward, sharing the truth and seeking reconciliation with those they harmed? If so, this is devoid of reality.

Furthermore, contrary to Lewis’ assertion of amnesty fostering reconciliation, the British government’s own consultation on the SHA points out that curtailing the right to justice would “risk progress towards reconciliation”, not promote it.

What we also know internationally is that amnesties can create a short-term hiatus in a political process, but when justice is evaded, it simply festers and re-emerges rather than creating reconciliation.

The Spanish 1977 amnesty or “pact of forgetting”, following the Franco regime, has not stopped recent attempts to prosecute those responsible. Spain remains deeply divided. In Chile, the amnesty passed by Pinochet in 1978 was overturned in 1998. This led to dozens of prosecutions of those responsible for disappearance and torture over the following decades. Even in South Africa, there are new moves to prosecute those who did not avail of the amnesty offered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In this context, the current proposals are not the product of some difficult soul-searching and the only option left on the table. It is a cynical and calculated political move.

It fits a pattern of political evasion of truth that has been and continues to be fundamentally unjust to all victims. It demonstrates how little Northern Ireland victims mean to the UK government.

The major stumbling block to reconciliation and dealing with the past in Northern Ireland is not victims trying to exercise their rights to justice, but 50 years of avoidance, untruths and injustice.

What is needed now is courageous leadership that fulfils previous commitments and confronts the past head-on, not politicians trying to draw fanciful lines in the sand.

Far from dealing with the past, the proposed amnesty will simply redraw the battle lines for the future.

Published by Brandon Hamber in the Belfast Telegraph, 15 July 2021.

Photo credit: “The Troubles,Belfast, Northern Ireland 1970–2 Coldstream Guards” by Kaspar C Licensed CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Moment of Truth…Victims of Northern Ireland’s Troubled Past Can’t Wait Forever

I started working in Northern Ireland in 1996, the first question I was always asked was: “Did Northern Ireland need a South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)?” This was understandable, as I was at the time working in South Africa with victims testifying before the TRC that ran from 1995 until 2003. The troubling thing, however, is that I am still regularly asked that same question nearly 25 years later. During this time, how many victims have died without knowing the truth, or obtaining justice for atrocities?

The failure to deal effectively with the past remains a stain on the copybook of the Northern Ireland peace process. A potted history of the saga highlights how punishingly slow it has been.

The most significant Government-backed process was the Consultative Group of the Past that delivered its report in January 2009. But it ended up shelved, mainly due to its controversial recommendation around compensation for all those who lost relatives in the conflict.

"PM holds Northern Ireland talks" by UK Prime Minister Licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Creeping headway was made over the following years, building upon the report in the failed Haass O’Sullivan talks in 2013 and subsequently. In December 2014, the political parties devised the Stormont House Agreement (SHA). It made a comprehensive set of proposals. The recommendations included setting up structures to collect the stories of the conflict in and about Northern Ireland, investigating unresolved cases, seeking information for victims from responsible groups, ensuring statements of acknowledgment for past hurts and identifying steps to build reconciliation. The SHA was put in a draft Bill in 2016. A public consultation started some two years later in May 2018. Over 17,000 written responses were received in the 21-week consultation. In between, the UN Special Rapporteur responsible for transitional justice significantly made two visits to Northern Ireland, tabling recommendations in November 2016. The British Government responded, “the recommendations can be best achieved through the full implementation of the SHA”.

In July 2019, a detailed summary of the consultation on the SHA was published. The British Government noted there was “an obligation to seek to address the legacy of the past” and it remained fully committed to the SHA.

But in March 2020, apparently motivated by political pressures from British Army veterans, the Government rowed back. The Secretary of State essentially proposed to pull the SHA apart, largely removing a focus of justice and investigation, favouring information recovery and storytelling under a broad, and undefined, banner of reconciliation. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee rightly took issue with the approach, but then they argued for yet another consultation. Reading this abridged history, it is hard not to conclude that the dealing with the past process is nothing more than a protracted and shameful tale of delay and avoidance. How painfully frustrating must this be for victims and survivors.

This does not mean that a South African-style truth commission is the right answer. The exact structure of the South African commission, including its ability to grant amnesty to perpetrators who confessed to gross violations of human rights, is unlikely to work in Northern Ireland. Amnesty meant that some victims had to forgo retributive justice for truth in the name of the wider peace process. Closing down the potential for victims to get their cases to court, or preventing public inquiries, in exchange for a truth-recovery process is an unlikely (and arguably unnecessary) option in Northern Ireland. The public nature of parts of the South African process, with perpetrators and victims testifying openly, might also be a tall order for the more closed culture in Northern Ireland.

Handing over of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report

The South African process had other failings. The administrative treatment of victims and the lack of follow-up was a problem. Sometimes a simplistic language of reconciliation and healing was used that implied that truth and testimony alone could mend a deeply divided society, rather than coupling this with a long-term political process and socio-economic transformation, ensuring equality between black and white South Africans.

On the positive side, South Africans were confronted on television and radio directly with the past and could not ignore it. We had to face the harm we did to one another and listen to the stories of survivors. The five volumes of the South African TRC report, built on the testimony of approximately 22,000 victims (not just the 1,800 who testified publicly), tells a detailed and thematic story of human rights violations. The report and the extensive archive provide a historically authoritative record that cannot be erased.

One of the biggest successes of the process, however, was when the TRC challenged narrow assumptions about the past. I recall a survivor whom we worked with over many years. She believed, as did most of us who knew her, that the police were responsible for her 18-year-old son’s assassination as they had routinely threatened him. Through the TRC it transpired, however, that her son, an underground ANC operative, was shot dead by his own Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) unit, the then military wing of the ANC. His killers, who the family knew well, accused him of being a spy. Whether these allegations were correct or not, as they have never been proved, the news was shattering for the family. The personal price of truth was enormous. However, as much as it pains me to write this, the TRC did its job in this case.

There were many cases of this kind that challenged dominant narratives. For example, during apartheid it was common to hear about MK activists who had killed themselves in operations. It turned out through the TRC that some of these deaths were the result of state entrapment. The state also carried out what were called “false flag operations”. Sections of the security police undertook illegal acts, such as sabotage and arson, to give credibility to their agents; they also blamed MK activists for bomb blasts they had planted. It was these types of cases that brought home how “dirty” the war was in South Africa. But they also helped to create a “grey” picture of the past, challenging the blinkered view some had of the state and political groups they supported. Arguably, this loosened the narratives of the past, opening the door for new understandings.

Confronting the truth in this way is risky and unsettling. But is foot-dragging risk-free? In Northern Ireland, the past continues to dominate the present. Every day, we hear stories of tensions concerning unresolved cases, memorials and commemorations. Politicians and the public are in continuous narrative battles about who was the most responsible for the hurts of the past and why. Victims also cannot be asked to forget. A significant amount of work has been done by the community sector to fill the gap created by political indecisiveness. But still the unresolved past remains a threat to a stable future, particularly as new challenges, such as Brexit or border polls, loom.

International lessons unequivocally suggest the past will not go away over time. Many countries, where little has been done politically to address the past, such as those in the Balkans, remain polarised. Unresolved cases, as we have seen in Chile and Argentina, are also transferred generationally with new family members continuing the struggle for truth and justice. By any international standards, the undeniable pattern of evasion and political obfuscation of truth is fundamentally unjust to all victims seeking answers. Inaction on the past is not a neutral act, it is an active denial of rights to victims. It is also creating ongoing political tensions in itself. Something must be done.

The South African process is not a blueprint and had its problems, but South Africans developed it to meet their specific set of needs at a critical historical moment. South African politicians showed leadership and courage to undertake a concerted and holistic attempt to deal with the past. In Northern Ireland, a set of workable, locally developed and previously politically agreed proposals have been made in the Stormont House Agreement. These proposals are not perfect, but surely it is time for the governments and political parties to show some backbone and act in unison finally, supporting a way forward on dealing with the past? At the very least, no one can accuse them of rushing into anything.

Published by Brandon Hamber in the Belfast Telegraph, 12 December 2020.

Dealing with the past in Northern Ireland: Resources

This is an ever-growing list of resources I have compiled on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.  First published 29 June 2012. My last update, following the release of the most recent government policy consultation, was reposted and updated on 18 November 2025.

Key Policy Documents & Resources

Sequential list of key policy documents & resources

• 
  The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2024-26 was introduced in the House of Commons on 14 October 2025. The second reading for the bill took place on 18 November 2025. More [External]
• CAJ Briefing Document on UK-Ireland Joint Framework. Download [External]
• The Legacy of the Troubles: A Joint Framework, 19 September 2025. Download [External]
• On 21 January 2026, MPs voted 373 to 106 to remove the contentious conditional immunity clause from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, following a court ruling that the immunity provisions violated human rights and the Windsor Framework.
• The Model Bill Team’s Response to the NIO Proposals, May 2022. Download [External]
• In May 2022, the UK government put forward the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. Download [External]
• The Model Bill Team’s Response to the NIO Proposals, September 2021. Download
• Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past, July 2021, Command Paper CP 498. Download
• Veterans of the Northern Ireland Troubles protected (newspaper article on British Government "proposals" as no official sources exist at this point) (6 May 2021). Read [External]
• Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's past Northern Ireland Affairs Committee consultation (Interim Report) and Evidence (26 October 2020). Download [External]
• Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's past Northern Ireland Affairs Committee consultation: The UK Government's New Proposals (open to 1 June 2020). Download [External]
  
• Ministerial Statement: Addressing Northern Ireland Legacy Issues: Written statement - HCWS168 (18 March 2020). Download [External]
  
• Analysis of the Stormont House Agreement (SHA) consultation responses (July 2019). Download [External]
  
• Consultation: Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past (closed 10 September 2018). Download
• Draft Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) Bill (10 March 2016). Download [External]
• Healing Through Remembering: Guide to the Stormont House Agreement (SHA) (2016). Download [External]
• Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence on his mission to Northern Ireland: Comments by the State (16 Nov 2016). Download
• Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, on his mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (March 2016). Download
• 'Model Bill Team' based at Queen's University Belfast and Committee on the Administration of Justice. Stormont House Agreement – Model Implementation Bill and Explanatory Notes (17 September 2015). Download [External]
• Stormont House Agreement (23 December 2014). Download
• Proposed Agreement (31 December 2013). An agreement among the parties of the Northern Ireland Executive on Parades, Select Commemorations, and Related Protests; Flags and Emblems; and Contending with the Past (also known as Haas O'Sullivan Proposals). Download [External]
• House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (December 2009). The Report of the Consultative Group on the Past in Northern Ireland. Response. Download [External]
• Report of the Consultative Group of the Past (January 2009). Download [External]
  
• House of Commons. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. (2008). Session 2007-08, evidence from Brandon Hamber, Cate Turner, Alan McBride and Sandra Peake. Download
• Healing Through Remembering (2006). Making Peace with the Past: Options for truth recovery regarding the conflict in and about Northern Ireland. Download
  
• House of Commons. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (October 2005). Ways of Dealing with Northern Ireland's Past: Government Response to the Committee's Tenth Report of Session 2004-05. Download
• House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee  Ways of Dealing with Northern Ireland's Past: Interim Report - Victims and Survivors  Tenth Report of Session 2004–05. Download
  
• Healing Through Remembering Consultation on Dealing with the Past (2002). Download
  
• "We Will Remember Them": Report of the Victims Commissioner (April 1998). Download [External]
  

Articles by Brandon Hamber and Colleagues

• Hamber, B. (2021, 15 July). Amnesty a line in the sand? It’s not even close. Belfast Telegraph.
• Hamber, B. (2020, 12 December). Moment of Truth…Victims of Northern Ireland’s Troubled Past Can’t Wait Forever. Belfast Telegraph.
• O'Neill, S. & Hamber, B. (2020). Response on Mental Health to Dealing with the Past Consultation. Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Consultation on "Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's past: The UK Government's New Proposals". INCORE, University of Ulster. Submitted online 31 May 2020.
• O'Neill, S. & Hamber, B. (2018). The need for a victim and survivor centred, trauma-informed approach: A Response to the Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past Consultation. INCORE, University of Ulster. Submitted online 5 October 2018.
• Hamber, B. and Kelly, G. (2018). Response on Reconciliation to the Consultation Paper: Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past. INCORE, University of Ulster. Submitted online 5 October 2018. 
• Hamber, B., & Kelly, G. (2018). Reconciliation: A Northern Ireland Case Study. In Kofi Annan Foundation and Interpeace (Eds), Challenging the Conventional: Can Post-Violence Reconciliation Succeed? (pp. 98-148). New York/Geneva: Kofi Annan Foundation & Interpeace.
• Brandon Hamber, 2008, Submission to the Consultative Group on the Past in Northern Ireland. (Submission, January). Belfast, Northern Ireland.
• Brandon Hamber, 2006, Getting to the Truth Through Talking, Daily Ireland, 14 March 2006.
• Brandon Hamber, 2004, Time to stop permissible lies about the past, Polity, 26 November.
• Brandon Hamber, 2004, Submission to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Reconciliation: Ways of dealing with Northern Ireland's Past (Submission, December). London: Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
• Brandon Hamber, 2003, A Truth Commission for Northern Ireland, Blog Post, 11 June 2003
• Hamber, B. (2002). Rights and Reasons: Challenges for Truth Recovery in South Africa and Northern Ireland. [Journal Article]. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(4), 1074-1094.
• Hamber, B. (Ed.). (1998). Past Imperfect: Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland and Societies in Transition. Derry/Londonderry: University of Ulster, INCORE.

Websites

• Healing Through Remembering
• Transitional Justice Institute
• CAIN
• CAIN (Section on Victims and Commemoration)
• Bloody Sunday Inquiry
• Commission for Victims and Survivors
  
• Committee for the Administration of Justice
• Consultative Group on the Past
• Historical Inquiries Team
• Pat Finucane Centre

Publications

List of key academic papers on Northern Ireland, dealing with the past and transitional justice, review the annotated list (56 references).

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) BillNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) BillNorthern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) BillDownloadDownloadDownload More

Seminar: Trauma-Informed Approach

The second seminar in the Dealing with the Past series was hosted online on 18 May 2020, with some 250 people joining online. I chaired this important online event.

The seminar was entitled "The need for a trauma-informed approach to address the conflict's legacy" and was delivered by Professor Siobhan O'Neill on 18 May 2020. In this seminar Professor O'Neill presents the evidence on the transgenerational impact of trauma, and highlights the importance of a "trauma-informed" approach to addressing the conflict's legacy to protect the population from further harm.

The seminar is part of the Transitional Justice Institute (TJI) and INCORE, in partnership with Healing Through Remembering and the John Hume and Thomas P. O'Neill Chair in Peace, online seminar series. The seminar was chaired by Professor Brandon Hamber.

Bibliography: Northern Ireland and transitional justice

List of key academic papers on Northern Ireland, dealing with the past and transitional justice, review the annotated list (56 references).

• Aiken, N. T. (2010). Learning to Live Together: Transitional Justice and Intergroup Reconciliation in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 4(2), 166-188.
• Aiken, N. T. (2015). The Bloody Sunday Inquiry: Transitional Justice and Postconflict Reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Journal of Human Rights, 14(1), 101-123. 
• Christine Bell, 'Transitional Justice, Interdisciplinarity and the State of the "Field" or "Non-Field",' International Journal of Transitional Justice 3(1) (2009): 5–27.
• Bell, C. (2003). Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(4), 1095-1147.
• Brown, K. (2012). 'What It Was Like to Live through a Day': Transitional Justice and the Memory of the Everyday in a Divided Society. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 6(3), 444-466. 
• Brown, K., & Ní Aoláin, F. (2014). Through the Looking Glass: Transitional Justice Futures through the Lens of Nationalism, Feminism and Transformative Change. International Journal of Transitional Justice. 
• Campbell, C., & Ni Aolain, F. (2003). Local Meets Global: Transitional Justice in Northern Ireland. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(4), 871-892. 
• Campbell, C., Ni Aolain, F., & Harvey, C. (2003). The Frontiers of Legal Analysis: Reframing the Transition in Northern Ireland. Modern Law Review, 66(3), 317-345. 
• Campbell, C., & Turner, C. (2008). Utopia and the doubters: truth, transition and the law. Legal Studies, 28(3), 374-395.
• Campbell, C., Ni Aolain, F. (2003). Local Meets Global: Transitional Justice in Northern Ireland. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(4), 871-892.
• Duffy, A. (2010). A Truth Commission for Northern Ireland? International Journal of Transitional Justice, 4(1), 26-46.
• Gawn, R. (2007). Truth cohabitation: a truth commission for Northern Ireland?, Irish Political Studies, 22(3), pp. 339 –361.
• Hackett, C., & Rolston, B. (2009). The burden of memory: Victims, storytelling and resistance in Northern Ireland. Memory Studies, 2(3), 355-376. 
• Hamber, B. (Ed.). (1998). Past Imperfect: Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland and Societies in Transition. Derry/Londonderry: University of Ulster, INCORE.
• Hamber, B. (2003). Rights and Reasons: Challenges for Truth Recovery in South Africa and Northern Ireland. [Journal Article]. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(4), 1074-1094.
• Hamber, B., & Lundy, P. (2020). Lessons from Transitional Justice? Toward a New Framing of a Victim-Centered Approach in the Case of Historical Institutional Abuse. Victims & Offenders, 15(6), 744-770.
• Healing Through Remembering. (2002). Report of the Healing Through Remembering Project. Belfast: Healing Through Remembering.
• Healing Through Remembering. (2005). Storytelling audit: An audit of personal story, narrative and testimony initiatives related to the conflict in and about Northern Ireland (Compiled by Gráinne Kelly). Belfast: Healing Through Remembering.
• Healing Through Remembering. (2006). International Experiences of Days of Reflection and Remembrance. Belfast: Healing Through Remembering.
• Healing Through Remembering (2006). Making Peace with the Past: Options for truth recovery regarding the conflict in and about Northern Ireland. Belfast: Healing Through Remembering. 
• Hearty, K. (2015). Legislating Hierarchies of Victimhood and Perpetrators: The Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 and the Meta-Conflict. Social & Legal Studies, 25(3), 333-353. 
• Hegarty, A. (2003). The Government of Memory: Public Inquiries and the Limits of Justice in Northern Ireland. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(4), 1148-1192.
• Hegarty, A. (2004). Truth, Law and Official Denial: The Case of Bloody Sunday. Criminal Law Forum, 15, 1990246.
• Jankowitz, S. (2018). The 'Hierarchy of Victims' in Northern Ireland: A Framework for Critical Analysis. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 12(2), 216-236.
• Kinder, E. (2020). Non-recurrence, reconciliation, and transitional justice: situating accountability in Northern Ireland's oral history archive. The International Journal of Human Rights, 1-20.
• Lawther, C. (2013). Denial, Silence and the Politics of the Past: Unpicking the Opposition to Truth Recovery in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 7(1), 157-177.
• Lawther, C (2017) The truth about loyalty: Emotions, ex-combatants and transitioning from the past. International Journal of Transitional Justice 11(3): 484–504.
• Dempster, L. (2019). 'Quiet' Transitional Justice: 'Publicness', Trust and Legitimacy in the Search for the 'Disappeared'. Social & Legal Studies, 29(2), 246-272. doi:10.1177/0964663919833027
• Lawther, C. (2020). Haunting and transitional justice: On lives, landscapes and unresolved pasts. International Review of Victimology, 0269758020945144. 
• Lundy, P., McGovern, M. (2006). A Truth Commission for Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey: Research Update, 46.
• Lundy, P., McGovern, M. (2008). Whose Justice? Rethinking Transitional Justice from the Bottom Up. Journal of Law and Society, 35(2), 265-292.
• Lundy, P., McGovern, M. (2008). A Trojan Horse? Unionism, Trust and Truth-telling in Northern Ireland. IJTJ, 2(1), 42-62.
• Lundy, P. (2009). 'Can the past be policed? Lessons from the Historical Enquiries Team Northern Ireland. Journal of Law and Social Challenges, 11, 109-171.
• Lundy, P. (2011). Paradoxes and challenges of transitional justice at the 'local level': historical enquiries in Northern Ireland. Contemporary Social Science, 6(1), 89-105.
• Lundy, P., & McGovern, M. (2008). Whose Justice? Rethinking Transitional Justice from the Bottom Up. Journal of Law and Society, 35(2), 265-292. 
• Lundy, P. and M. Mcgovern (2008). "Truth, Justice and Dealing with the Legacy of the Past in Northern Ireland, 1998–2008" Ethnopolitics, 7(1), 177-193.
• Lundy, P. (2010). Commissioning the Past in Northern Ireland. Review of International Affairs, LX(1138-1139), 101-133.
• Mallinder, L. (2019). Metaconflict and international human rights law in dealing with Northern Ireland's past. Cambridge International Law Journal, 8(1), 5-38. 
• McDowell, S. (2018). Transitional Justice and the Politics of Inscription: Memory, Space and Narrative in Northern Ireland. The AAG Review of Books, 6(4), 260-262.
• McEvoy, K. (2007). Beyond Legalism: Towards a Thicker Understanding of Transitional Justice. Journal of Law and Society, 34(4), 411-440. 
• Kieran McEvoy, 2010, Making peace with the past in Northern Ireland, The Guardian, October, 2010
• McEvoy, K. (2010). Truth, Transition and Reconciliation: Dealing With the Past in Northern Ireland. London: Willan Publishing.
• McEvoy, K. (2018). Travel, Dilemmas and Nonrecurrence: Observations on the 'Respectabilisation' of Transitional Justice. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 12(2), 185-193.
• Kieran McEvoy and Anna Bryson, 'Justice, Truth and Oral History: Legislating the Past "from Below" in Northern Ireland,' Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 67(1) (2016): 67–90.
• McEvoy, K., & McConnachie, K. (2013). Victims and Transitional Justice: Voice, Agency and Blame. Social & Legal Studies, 22(4), 489-513. 
• McEvoy, K., Holder, D., Mallinder, L., Bryson, A., Gormally, B., & McKeown, G. (2020). Prosecutions, Imprisonment and the Stormont House Agreement: A Critical Analysis of Proposals on Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland.
• McEvoy, Kieran ;  Bryson, Anna; Gormally, Brian; Holder, Daniel; Greenberg, Daniel; Hill, Jeremy;  Mallinder, Louise (2016). Stormont House Agreement: Model Implementation Bill. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 67(1): 1-36.
• Ní Aoláin, F. (2002). Truth Telling Accountability and the Right to Life in Northern Ireland Issue. European Human Rights Law Review, 5, 572.
• O'Rourke, C. (2008). The Shifting Signifier of 'Community' in Transitional Justice: A Feminist Analysis. Wisconsin Women's Law Journal, 23(2).
• Rolston, B. (2002). Assembling the jigsaw: truth, justice and transition in the North of Ireland. Race and Class, 44(1), 87-106.
• Rolston, B. (2006). Dealing with the Past: Pro-State Paramilitaries, Truth and Transition in Northern Ireland. Human Rights Quarterly, 28(3), 652-675.
• Bill, R., & Fionnuala Ní, A. (2018). Colonialism, Redress and Transitional Justice: Ireland and Beyond. State Crime Journal, 7(2), 329-348.
• Rooney, E., & Aoláin, F. N. (2018). Transitional Justice from the Margins: Intersections of Identities, Power and Human Rights. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 12(1), 1-8. 
• Slugger O'Toole, Debating Dealing with the Past in the Assembly, 10 October 2010.
• Simpson, K. (2009). Truth Recovery in Northern Ireland: Critically Interpreting the Past. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

 "The Troubles,Conway Street ,Belfast,Northern Ireland -1970,(The Peace Line)" 
by Kaspar C is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0A

Breaking Binary History Online Seminar

The first of the "Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland" seminar series is now available online. The seminar was entitled "Breaking Binary History: Can the Stormont House Agreement facilitate a broader and more representative understanding of the past?"" by Dr Adrian Grant on 7 May 2020.

The seminar is part of the Transitional Justice Institute (TJI) and INCORE, in partnership with Healing Through Remembering and the John Hume and Thomas P. O'Neill Chair in Peace, online seminar series.

Dealing with the Past Seminar Series

Despite the challenging current context debates about how to address Northern Ireland's past continue. I am delighted to be organising in my capacity as John Hume and Thomas P. O'Neill Chair in Peace - with the Transitional Justice Institute (TJI) and INCORE and in partnership with Healing Through Remembering - and important seminar series on this issue.  This online seminar series will explore the Stormont House Agreement and dealing with the past in Northern Ireland and run for the remainder of the year.

Find out more and review the schedule of seminars.

Response on Reconciliation to Consultation on Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past

The government launched a consultation on "Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past" earlier in 2018 with a closing date of October 2018. As part of the responses to the consultation myself and Grainne Kelly made a submission on Reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a stated principle and aim of the Consultation Paper: Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past (May 2018). Reconciliation is noted in the consultation document under principles, that is “the principle that reconciliation should be promoted”. Later in the document reference is made to the Implementation and Reconciliation Group (IRG) with its stated aim “to promote reconciliation and anti-sectarianism and to review and assess the implementation of the other legacy institutions proposed in the Stormont House Agreement”.

Drawing on our body of research work on reconciliation undertaken over a 14 year period the main points we make, expanded in our submission, is that although reconciliation is a stated aim and principle of the process (and the Secretary of State also affirms this in the Foreword) there is, firstly, no attempt to define what is meant by reconciliation. Secondly, the document does not outline how reconciliation might be supported and promoted. We understand that implementation might be the task of IRG members, but our research findings suggest that this might be very difficult for a number of reasons. We argue that the current proposed structure of the IRG, and the appointment process in particular, will compound the challenge of reconciliation. At the same time, we believe that the work we have done in defining reconciliation could be beneficial to the process.

Consultation: Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past

The government has now launched a consultation on "Addressing the Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past". The blurb reads:

More than 3,500 people were killed as a result of the Troubles. The hurt and suffering caused is still felt by people across Northern Ireland and beyond. The Troubles affected lots of different people, including victims and survivors. People have been affected in different ways.The Government is trying to find the best way to meet the needs of victims and survivors and to help people address the impact of the Troubles in the areas of information, justice and acknowledgement and help Northern Ireland transition to long term-term peace and stability. We need to do this in order to support true reconciliation and healing at a societal level.We want to know what you think. Take part in the consultation online, or scroll down for details of other ways to take part.

This consultation closes at 5pm on 10 September 2018, details can be viewed here.

Please note that the consultation has now been extended to 5pm on 5 October 2018.

Handbook: “Transforming War Related Identities”

It has been a great privilege for to write the lead article for the Berghof Handbook Dialogue series entitled “Transforming War Related Identities”

The series explores the question of how individuals and collectives can come to terms with war memories or trauma after mass atrocities is crucial for framing post-war relationships. But how do the processes on different levels (individual and collective) and diverse dimensions of identity formation relate to each other? How to deal with trans-generational legacies of violence? How can the needs of the victims be served in an appropriate way, and how to address “cultures of victimhood” that stem from past violence?

These questions are discussed by scholars and practitioners, peace activists, psychologists and social scientists in Berghof Handbook Dialogue 11 (ed. by Beatrix Austin & Martina Fischer).

The following contributions are available on our website:

• Brandon Hamber:  Dealing with Painful Memories and Violent Pasts. Towards a Framework for Contextual Understanding  (lead article)
• Olivera Simic: Dealing with Painful Memories. Walking the thin Line between War and its Aftermath (comment)
• David Becker: Working on the Psychosocial Gap. Challenges, Hopes, Perspectives (comment)
• Undine Whande: Recalling South Africa. Memory Work across Time and Space (comment)
• Andrea Zemskov-Züge: Dealing with the Past in the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict. The Power of Narratives, Spaces and Rituals (comment)
• Brandon Hamber: Grappling with the Stranglehold of the Past Over Time: Response (response)

My contribution  analyses diverse approaches for dealing with painful memories and discusses how different dimensions (interpersonal and intergroup relations, individual and collective memories and identities) relate to one another. The chapter builds on experiences from South Africa and Northern Ireland, where Hamber chairs the International Conflict Research Institute (INCORE) at Ulster University. We asked scholar-practitioners from other contexts to comment on his thoughts. Olivera Simic (Griffith University, Brisbane) and David Becker (Free University, Berlin) focus on working with trauma and reflect on experiences in coping with painful memories in the Balkans. Andrea Zemskov-Züge (Berghof Foundation) brings in examples from the Caucasus (Georgia/Abkhazia) and Undine Whande’s text makes reference to South Africa and to experiences from Germany in dealing with the legacies of the second world war.

You can also purchase the hard copy from Berghof and it includes my response to the above articles, visit here.

This Handbook Dialogue is dedicated to Dan Bar-On, who spent most of his life reflecting on practical approaches for dealing with the past and exploring how people whose lives and identities have been shattered by violence come to live a decent life again.

Dealing with the Past Course for Professionals

Schloss Münchweiler in Switzerland the venue for the training

It was great in July to team up once again with Alistair Little (Beyond Walls) to teach on the The Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) and swisspeace course entitled Dealing with the Past Advanced Learning Course for Professionals.

The course according to the organisers addresses a range of topics which are central to the development of a holistic approach to Dealing with the Past (DwP) and to the implementation of relevant mechanisms for dealing with prior and on-going grave human rights violations. Special attention is paid to case studies, to a gender based approach, to the need to integrate dealing with the past in the negotiation of peace agreements, as well as in the post conflict efforts.

In 2016 the course took place in Switzerland, 5 - 13 July 2016. Alistair and I taught a two day session on dealing with victim-perpetrator issues in post-conflict societies, reconciliation and dealing with the past.

Dealing with Painful Memories and Violent Pasts

My article "Dealing with Painful Memories and Violent Pasts. Towards a Framework for Contextual Understanding" has now been published in the Berghof Handbook Dialogue Series No.11.

The article reflects on the role of different approaches for dealing with painful memories and violent pasts. In it I explore how different dimensions – interpersonal and intergroup relations, memories and identities at the individual and collective level – relate to one another. I also address how one can constructively address victim identities and cultures of victimhood that may stem from painful or traumatic experiences in light of my work in South Africa and Northern Ireland, among other locales.

You can download the paper by clicking here.

Reconsidered Narratives

A working group of the Victims and Survivors Forum produced an interesting paper last year on dealing with the past (download here). The document addresses a range of issues including truth, justice and reparations. Some space is also given to storytelling and the different narratives held about Northern Ireland’s conflicted past. Specifically, the paper calls for “a collection” of existing storytelling projects as this could make “an important contribution to a shared narrative of what happened”. Needless to say, the paper outlines how difficult it would be to achieve an accepted narrative of the past.

However, the paper is optimistic and argues that a composite narrative of the past may be possible if all different narratives are collected and placed along side each other. It places three caveats on this, that is, such narratives should be supplemented with additional material, not adjudicated, and those who engage with it will have to display a “generosity in listening”.

© Adrian van Leen, Public Domain, Openphoto.net

The Accounts of the Conflict project based at INCORE at the University of Ulster with its core aim of collecting existing stories and making these available on the internet could make a major contribution to the ideal expressed in the Victims and Survivors Forum paper. Accounts of the Conflict will be a complex record of the past, albeit limited by those who choose to deposit their stories with the project. However, by being based on the internet, the archive can further expand and develop over time. A further strength will be that by linking the archive with CAIN, the largest global online repository of information on Northern Ireland, stories can be contextualised.

However, outside of the aspirations to create an archive that is large enough to start to paint some sort of composite picture of the past, the Victims and Survivors Forum paper reminds us of the importance of not just the content of storytelling but how we engage with the past. A first step might be, as Accounts of the Conflict will attempt to do, and the Victims and Survivors Forum advocate, to place narratives alongside each other. But the bigger question remains: What do different groups and individuals do with these stories?

The call for a “generosity in listening” and not just story collecting from one perspective is important. This is a tall order given the hurts experienced in the past, but the importance of “story listening” and not just “story telling” has to be a part of the wider reconciliation agenda.

But one also has to ask if placing narratives next to each other will be sufficient over the long-term. Unquestionably, with time, different narratives will interact and influence one another. Could this result in a reconsideration of aspects of the past? I hope so.

As we learn more about the perspectives of others, hopefully the way we see the past will widen, become more complicated and change, if only in terms of fractional parts of our own understandings. This I call a reconsidered narrative. Although it might sound daunting to even consider this at this point in time, surely it is only when we start to see the flaws in our own accounts of the past that change can happen and genuine acknowledgement can become a reality.

Originally published on the Accounts of the Conflict  Blog, 8 April 2014, click here.

Basque Social Forum to Promote the Peace Process

I recently had the pleasure of speaking at the Basque Social Forum to Promote the Peace Process, bakebidea.com. I was asked to speak about Dealing with the Past.

Below is my Tweet record of my talk. Obviously, a summary but core ideas contained.

Tweet record sent 16 March 2013:

• Yesterday had the pleasure of speaking at the Basque Social Forum to Promote the Peace Process www.bakebidea.com #bakeforo
• Bake Bidea seeks to promote reflection about the Basque peace process through dialogue with the public in public forums #bakeforo
• Speakers included myself, Colm Campbell, Kieran McEvoy (@kieranmcevoy2), Andy Carl, and Martin Snodden (pictured above in order) followed by public discussion
• We spoke in Bilbao to an audience of some 300, my topic was dealing with the past #bakeforo
• Dealing with the past is the process of addressing a legacy of violence #bakeforo
• Conflict is often about simplicity, we are divided, good and bad. Dealing with the past is about embracing complexity #bakeforo
• When I talk about dealing with the past I draw on Healing Through Remembering (@HTRinfo) who are concerned with structured, active and purposeful attempts #bakeforo
• Dealing with the past is a wide ranging subject, but largely focuses on what strategies and mechanisms #bakeforo
• Examples include, among others, storytelling, to memorialization, to truth commissions, apologies, community projects, reparations #bakeforo
• Drawing a line is a way of dealing with the past, but it generally does not work. Look at the case of Spanish Civil War now #bakeforo
• From my experience there are six key lessons we now know about dealing with the past in countries emerging from violence #bakeforo
• Lesson 1: Dealing with the past is wider than a truth commission, you need multiple strategies at different levels over long term #bakeforo
• You can do dealing with the past work in the absence of political agreements and it continues after formal processes like TRCs too #bakeforo
• Lesson 2: different political realities determine the types of approaches taken. No one approach. It always involves compromise #bakeforo
• Political realities mean for example complete amnesty is unlikely and incomplete retributive justice for victims is a reality #bakeforo
• Lesson 3: You need a wider aim and vision. Victims are central and those involved in violence, but the process is about society #bakeforo
• You need social and political buy in into processes with all players involved, it is top down and bottom up, and institutional #bakeforo
• Lesson 4: seek complexity and learn to live with different views of the past, while “narrowing permissible lies” (Ignatieff) #bakeforo
• Absolute truth is not possible. But we can narrow what societies see as acceptable and break myths about the past #bakeforo
• In South Africa it was helpful to know all sides committed violations, maybe for different reasons, but there was a dirty war #bakeforo
• We must highlight stories of complexity that challenge our simplistic notions of good and bad #bakeforo
• Getting information about causes, nature and extent of a conflict is important through truth recovery processes #bakeforo
• Lesson 5: we need to seek new ways of framing the conflict and create the spaces where we can do this #bakeforo
• We need to pay attention to language and symbols, not become fixated but work through processes to understand the latent meaning #bakeforo
• We must engage in public discussions about the past, and reframe issues like the changing of murals in Belfast #bakeforo
• ...or victims and combatants to be given space to speak of their experiences #bakeforo
• Lesson 6: trust must be built at all levels and honesty in engagement is vital to maintain trust (HTR) #bakeforo
• We should not lie to victims for example and promise them complete justice when the political reality is this won't happen #bakeforo
• But confidence building mechanisms are needed like apologies and acknowledgement, along with consultation and participation #bakeforo
• Thank you and all the best with the Forum, this type of public engagement is important in peace processes #bakeforo

Tweets sent by others referring to my input on 15 March 2013:

• @PaulRios Hamber: los conflictos son sencillos (buenos/malos) Los procesos de paz son complejos #bakeforo (at 6:35pm)
• @PaulRios Hamber: olvidar puede ser una estrategia pero no funciona #bakeforo (at 6:38pm)
• @PaulRios Hamber: las amnistías completas no tienen sitio en el contexto internacional #bakeforo (at 6:47pm)
• @PaulRios Hamber: las víctimas son centrales en estos proceso pero el proceso es acerca de la convivencia en la sociedad #bakeforo (at 6:48pm)
• @PaulRios Hamber: la honestidad es fundamental. Por ejemplo, hay quien crea falsas expectativas en las víctimas #bakeforo (at 6:57pm)
• @BarcenaPatricia Hamber: Aprender a vivir con visiones diferentes. Como la verdad absoluta no es posible hay limitar "las mentiras posibles" en #bakeforo (at 10:15pm)

Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland

Today I attended a Transitional Justice Institute workshop looking at dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. Main question asked: where to now. In short, the key point emerging was that the dealing with the past question has not gone away, and there is a need to have some organised way of addressing it. However, a lack of leadership and commitment locally and by the two governments stymies things moving forward. While this goes on victims continue to be frustrated by the plethora of mechanisms out there, none of which are meeting their needs in entirety, in fact making many feel they have to repeat themselves in multiple forums. There is also a growing resentment by some victims of their cases being called "historical" or "legacy issue" implying the concerns about truth and justice are not contemporary. Denis Bradley spoke at the event, and although does not see much progress, said he felt that the Consultative Group on the Past report has not been entirely binned and may return, as it is the only viable option on the table.

Also see my collection of resources and website on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland.

Launch of the Consultative Group on the Past Report

Today the Consultative Group on the Past launched its report, here is the speech at the launch. The launch itself was marked by controversy. I was present and it was all very calm until various victims groups started an argument about the recommendation for a "recognition payment" to all the victims of the conflict. The scenes were actually fairly distressing and the launch was delayed for some time (see BBC footage). The whole affair has left the future of the report in doubt. Although the recommendation payment is only one of 30, no doubt controversy will reign.

Download the full report here.

Healing Through Remembering, which I Chair, released a press statement before the launch. It is below.

HTR Response to Report of the Consultative Group on the Past launch

27/01/2009 

The report builds on the work of Healing Through Remembering and supports the view, long held by Healing Through Remembering, that there is need for society to address the issues relating to the conflict in and about Northern Ireland in order to build a more peaceful future.

Kate Turner, Director of Healing Through Remembering says “What we need is measured and reasonable debate on these issues. The experience of HTR is that honest inclusive debate in an appropriate environment can bring agreement on reconciliation, truth and justice by those who hold opposing views and opinions.”

Brandon Hamber, chair of Healing Through Remembering says “The report offers an opportunity to genuinely engage with the difficult issue of the past. Few places have consulted so widely in their deliberations on such issues. We should not squander opportunities for dialogue on these thorny issues on the back of political posturing. Let’s debate the recommendations and try and find a measured way of taking this issue forward.”

Healing Through Remembering continues to enable deeper discussions, forums and events on how best to deal with the conflict in and about Northern Ireland to build a better future.

Truth a stranger, fiction the norm

For South Africans, what happens in Northern Ireland probably seems tangential to everyday life. However, living in Belfast means that I cannot escape it. Currently, as the new power-sharing government beds down, the issue of dealing with the past is taking up much media space. This marks a major shift. A few years ago, the question was off limits.

That said, exactly how society should deal with its past remains unclear. Some still favour ‘drawing a line’ under it. There is much talk of the South African approach, but few takers.

Last year, the British government set up a Consultative Panel on the Past to provide a way forward. The fact that it was a panel appointed by the British government, which is a player in the conflict, means that some people question whether it is the best vehicle to chart a way forward. Nonetheless, work has begun, with most adopting a ‘wait and see’ attitude.

Recently, the panel burst into public view with controversies about whether amnesty should be granted and whether the conflicts of the past should be labelled a ‘war’ or not. To South Africans, this might sound strange. Although this is an odd place for the discussion to start, it belies wider questions familiar to South Africans. In terms of amnesty, what compromises will be needed to deal with the past? As regards the ‘war’ question, this is significant in terms of acknowledging the extent of the conflict, and determining whose actions were legitimate.

South Africa was forced to confront these questions, given the scale of deaths, but in Northern Ireland, where 3 600 people lost their lives, it seems as if people think confronting the past is a choice. That said, the population is only 1,5-million, so 3 600 deaths is proportionally close to the number (roughly 25 000) of those who died in South Africa from political violence.

It seems, however, as if Northern Ireland has not reached first base. One critical question needs to be answered at this stage: is truth about past violations a right? Do we think knowing about the past from all sides is important, in principle? If so, then the next step is not to list all the reasons why this will never be possible, but rather to ask how society can ensure truth can be delivered. This needs political and social backing, independence and integrity.

South Africa, at least at political level, opted for the idea of truth as non-negotiable. This resulted in the truth commission. However, as I write, I am struck by the fact that much business related to the past is still not finished in South Africa. For example, those who failed to take the opportunity to apply for amnesty during the life of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have not been prosecuted for crimes such as murder and torture, or told the truth. For most victims, truth and justice remain elusive. Most continue to live in poverty.

So, as Northern Ireland confronts the question whether it should engage in truth recovery for the first time, perhaps, South Africans have to ask the question for a second time. Some of you reading this will roll your eyes at such a suggestion, but, if we think truth is a principle our young democracy should embody, have we done enough about uncovering and addressing the horrors of the past?

In turn, is the lack of a principled and unrelenting quest for the truth about the past emblematic of how we pursue truth in the present? It seems that when we suspect a cover-up, we establish a commission with much fanfare and promises of truth recovery and justice, but over time such endeavours lose focus and grind to a halt. Remember, to paraphrase writer HL Mencken, truth would cease to be stranger than fiction, if we were as used to it as to lies.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 1 February 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

Truth recovery: In principle where do you stand?

Just News: CAJ Newsletter, 3 January 2008

The question of how Northern Ireland deals with its past has become commonplace. This mainstreaming marks a major shift. A few years ago the question itself was off limits. That said, exactly how the society should deal with its past remains unclear. Some still favour “drawing a line” under it.

Last year the Consultative Panel on the Past was set up by the British government to provide a way forward on the dealing with the past. Questions remain whether it is the best vehicle to answer these questions, nonetheless work has begun with most adopting a "wait and see" attitude.

Recently the Panel burst into public view with controversies about whether amnesty should be granted and if the conflicts of the past should be labelled a ‘war’ or not. Although this is a strange place for the discussion to start, it belies wider questions. In terms of amnesty, what compromises will be needed to deal with the past? And for the "war" question, how should the extent of the conflict be acknowledged and whose actions were legitimate?

This is not to say that nothing has been happening on the dealing with the past front. There have been many inquiries; cases before the European Court of Human Rights; and there is the Historical Enquiries Team. At the civil society level, the Healing Through Remembering initiative has made a significant contribution. The project, which has members from all different political perspectives, has presented options for truth recovery, hosted a Day of Reflection, considered methods such as storytelling and provided ideas for a living memorial museum.

Photo by Clay Banks / Unsplash

So Northern Ireland is, at least to a degree, engaged in a process of dealing with the past. The bigger question is whether more is needed and how structured this should be. But this question in itself creates apprehension. Some fear any method of dealing with the past will be a republican Trojan Horse to put the British state in the dock. Others fear no one will “come clean” especially paramilitaries and the two governments. There are also those that fear truth is damaging and will destroy the peace process. The question of whether justice will be done for past violations also remains critical, especially for some victims. Many worry that any method for dealing with the past that is not judicial will extinguish hopes of justice.

Working with Healing Through Remembering over the years, and through my own research, I have heard all these arguments (and others) on countless occasions. What is interesting about them from the international perspective is that they are also the arguments used by other countries when arguing for a structured approach to dealing with the past, especially a truth commission.

I have heard people from Liberia to Peru argue for a truth commission because they fear that if nothing is done one version of the past will dominate history. If all accounts of the past are put on the table, all will come out tarnished, even those who think everything they did was correct. Similarly, if no one wants to “come clean” then an independent body with powers such as search, subpoena and seizure should be put in place to investigate the past. Those who do not cooperate, including the state, should be labelled as such. Some victims also voice the need for alternative mechanisms to courts because courts often fail to deliver justice, especially en masse. And finally, contrary to the view that the truth is damaging, many argue that if the truth about the past does not come out, it will pollute the future.

So where does this leave the larger questions about the past in Northern Ireland? 

For me it highlights how people are better at articulating why the past should be avoided rather that why it should be confronted. What is at the heart of this resistance?

All that can be surmised is that no one is clear whether their view of history and their actions will be vindicated. To this end, one critical question needs to be answered: is truth about past violations a right? Do we think knowing about the past from all sides, including paramilitaries, the two governments, as well as institutions that shaped the past from churches to the media, is important in principle? If so, then surely the next step is not to list all the reasons this will never be possible, but rather to ask how society can ensure truth can be delivered in a way that has political and social backing, independence and integrity.

Reference: Hamber, B. (2008). Truth recovery: In principle where do you stand? Just News: CAJ Newsletter, January, 3.