Private violence, public justice: addressing intimate partner violence in truth commissions

ABSTRACT

Despite being the most prevalent form of violence in transitional settings emerging from armed conflict or authoritarian repression, intimate partner violence (IPV) has not been explicitly addressed in the mandate or investigation of any truth commission to date. Yet, using my original Gender Violence in Truth Commissions (GVTC) database, I shockingly found that one quarter of all truth commissions include references to IPV in their final reports. This article explores the tension between the lack of explicit inclusion of IPV in transitional justice processes such as truth commissions and the appearance of these references. I first outline the theoretical argument for why IPV should be included within transitional justice mechanisms. Obstacles to explicit inclusion of IPV are then identified, such the belief that it is a “private” form of harm unrelated to armed conflict or authoritarianism. By analyzing GVTC data, I show that IPV theoretically should and practically can be addressed within transitional justice processes, at least within truth commissions, and reveal characteristics that have enabled IPV to emerge within final reports. This article is the first systematic cross-national analysis of IPV within transitional justice, and the first work specifically on IPV and truth commissions.

KEYWORDS:

• Transnational justice
• intimate partner violence
• armed conflict
• authoritarianism
• truth commissions

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 See for instance Kimberly Theidon (2007) and Jelke Boesten (2010) on Peru, and Monica McWilliams and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (2013) and Aisling Swaine (2022) on Northern Ireland.

2 Drawing on the UN’s (2023) definition, I define IPV as violence perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner of the victim, including sexual, physical, economic, or psychological abuse. IPV impacts people of all gender identities, though women and girls are disproportionately affected.

3 This is in line with other research on gender-based violence. My previous work has highlighted these pathways in armed conflict settings, illustrating how wartime rape can leave individuals more vulnerable to future sexual exploitation or sexual abuse (Anania 2022).

4 Researchers have raised the possibility that post-conflict increases in recorded instances of IPV may actually reflect improved access to reporting following the cessation of conflict, rather than a real rise in the number of cases (McWilliams and Doyle 2017). Given the significant barriers to collecting accurate IPV data before, during, and after transition, it is difficult to know precisely how IPV fluctuates alongside armed conflict or authoritarianism. Yet, clear pathways have been identified and evidenced – such as retaliatory violence by partners against survivors of wartime sexual violence, or the return of combatants – and these demonstrate how armed conflict or authoritarianism can drive new and novel incidences of IPV. These findings evidence a post-transition increase in IPV.

5 Identifying victims’ reluctance to discuss IPV as an obstacle to its inclusion in transitional justice processes is, of course, not intended to cast blame or judgment on individuals who choose not to report or testify about their experiences of IPV, but rather to flag the practical limitations that it incurs. Ample research acknowledges the choice to remain silent as an act of bravery, agency, or self-protection (Boesten and Henry 2018; Krystalli 2021; Parpart and Parashar 2020; Theidon 2007).

6 The link between trauma and IPV remains complicated. Research in the United Kingdom found that even when former soldiers attributed their perpetration of IPV to trauma or conflict-related post-traumatic stress disorder, the abuse had in many cases begun prior to their military service (Eriksson Baaz, Gray, and Stern 2018).

7 Truth commissions whose mandates included gender-based violence are Haiti (1995), Nigeria (1999), East Timor (2002), Sierra Leone (2002), the DRC (2004), South Korea (2005), Liberia (2006), Ecuador (2007), Kenya (2009), the Solomon Islands (2009), and Tunisia (2013).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jessica Anania

Jessica Anania holds a PhD from the University of Oxford, UK, where her research focused on the domestic and multilateral response to armed conflict. She has been a consultant with the UN Office for the Coordination of Human Affairs (OCHA) since 2020, and is currently a Fellow at the Women, Peace, and Security Institute at Georgetown University, USA. Her research has been published in International Affairs, by the US Institute of Peace, and by the International Peace Institute.