The global project of transitional justice (TJ) traditionally has been packaged in a multi-pillar model with criminal justice, truth recovery, reparations, institutional reform, and memorialization, and the norms they enshrine, seemingly presented as interventions of equivalent status at the level of policy. This article aims to enhance the theorizing on TJ as a “norm cluster” by comparatively examining the relations between the norms found in the cluster in transitional practices in Colombia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We claim that the relations between the norms of TJ are hierarchically organized, with the anti-impunity norm being positioned as normatively superior. Through an analysis of TJ processes in the two countries in the past three decades, we discuss how such a hierarchy was established, secured, and challenged. Our findings show that hierarchical relations arise primarily due to legitimacy concerns and are manifested as changes in the internal structure of the anti-impunity norm whereby its prescribed behaviors or measures, i.e., criminal trials, seek to fulfill a range of new values. We argue that, in search for ownership and legitimacy, political actors have overemphasized the role of criminal trials by increasing their “social weight” and positioned them as indispensable for achieving the values of truth, reconciliation, and non-recurrence, disturbing the internal structures and co-opting the spaces of other measures in the TJ norm cluster. Such normative superiority of anti-impunity is significant and detrimental for the TJ global project. It has resulted in other TJ mechanisms being weakened by or dependent on judicial procedures, and it has enhanced competing and revisionist truth-making while promoting a narrow understanding of accountability. Ultimately, we establish that the normative superiority of criminal justice continues to challenge the prospects of complex and comprehensive TJ and that the place of anti-impunity in the norm cluster should be rethought.

中文翻译：

---

逃避还是强化等级制度？过渡时期司法中的规范关系

过渡时期司法（TJ）的全球项目传统上被包装在一个多支柱模式中，包括刑事司法、真相恢复、赔偿、机构改革和纪念，以及它们所奉行的规范，似乎表现为同等地位的干预措施的政策。本文旨在通过比较研究哥伦比亚和波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那转型实践中的集群中发现的规范之间的关系，加强将 TJ 作为“规范集群”的理论化。我们认为，TJ 规范之间的关系是按等级组织的，其中反有罪不罚规范在规范上处于较高地位。通过对过去三十年两国的 TJ 流程的分析，我们讨论了这种等级制度是如何建立、维护和挑战的。我们的研究结果表明，等级关系的产生主要是由于合法性问题，并表现为反有罪不罚规范内部结构的变化，其规定的行为或措施，即刑事审判，寻求实现一系列新的价值观。我们认为，为了寻求所有权和合法性，政治行为者过分强调了刑事审判的作用，增加了刑事审判的“社会权重”，并将其定位为实现真相、和解和杜绝重犯价值观不可或缺的一部分，从而扰乱了内部结构。并在 TJ 范数簇中选择其他度量的空间。这种反有罪不罚的规范优势对于 TJ 全球项目来说意义重大，但也是有害的。它导致其他 TJ 机制被司法程序削弱或依赖司法程序，它增强了竞争性和修正主义的真相建构，同时促进了对问责制的狭隘理解。最终，我们确定刑事司法的规范优势继续挑战复杂而全面的司法审判的前景，并且应该重新思考反有罪不罚在规范群中的地位。