PEACE
Post-conflict institutions, particularly those like gacaca or the ICTR, that pursue justice in some form, are usually connected to the objective of peace through the idea of deterrence.
If we punish the orchestrators and perpetrators of mass violence, the argument goes, then we will send a clear message that future criminals will also be punished, thus dissuadÂing them from committing atrocities. As explored in the Introduction to this book, one of the root causes of the genocide in Rwanda was a culture of impunity, as political leaders were rarely held accountable for [81] their crimes, thus encouraging them to continue orchestrating violence and creating the conditions whereby mass crimes such as genocide were possible. Eradicating the culture of impunity, by punishing those responÂsible for serious crimes, is therefore seen as vital for restoring stability in post-conflict societies and for replacing a culture of violence with a culture of peace.On the basis of notions of deterrence, transitional institutions are regularly viewed as tools of peacebuilding. The Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, for example, defines peacebuilding as â€?activities undertaken on the far side of conflict to reassemble the founÂdations of peace and provide the tools for building on those foundations something that is more than just the absence of war', including, â€?promotÂing conflict resolution and reconciliation techniques'.[82] Furthermore, the UN states that peacebuilding entails â€?in the aftermath of conflict... identifying and supporting measures and structures which will solidify peace and build trust and interaction among former enemies, in order to avoid a relapse into conflict'.[83] This definition of peacebuilding contains two aspects of â€?peace': a negative component, in which peace (usually defined as the absence of conflict) has already been achieved but must now be solidified in the immediate aftermath of violence; and a posiÂtive component, in which peace is a long-term condition that must be facilitated for the future, through building trust and encouraging greater interaction between previously antagonistic parties.
Each of these components comprises an interpretation of the timeÂframe and the necessary measures to bring about peace.
In the negative version, peace involves short-term maintenance that shores up a recently achieved situation of non-violence. In the positive component, peace constitutes a long-term process that requires fostering deeper norms and mechanisms in a community to ensure that combatants do not return to conflict. Positive peace seeks to overcome what David Crocker describes as the â€?temptation in post-conflict or post-authoritarian sociÂeties... to permit euphoria (which comes from the cessation of hostilÂities...) to pre-empt the hard work needed to remove the fundamental causes of injustice and guard against their repetition'.[84] Negative peace requires simply that the parties involved maintain security and stability and no longer act violently towards one another. Such processes constiÂtute forms of peacekeeping or peace enforcement, which are the stated purview of armed bodies such as UNAMIR. Positive peace, meanwhile, entails deeper engagement between previous antagonists, requiring new conflict-resolution methods to safeguard against violence in the long term. Negative peace is generally interpreted as a prerequisite of positive peace, as security and stability are necessary for the parties involved to begin constructing safeguards against future conflict. Both components of peace should be viewed as prerequisites of reconciliation, as negative peace helps facilitate positive peace, which, in turn, may help parties to resolve their conflicts more effectively in the future and therefore build stronger, longer-lasting relationships.