Doctoral Dissertation Research:Does Restorative Justice Contribute to Human Rights and Peace? Explaining Diffusion and Evaluating Impacts Using a Multi-Method, Multi-Level Approach

各国越来越多地选择真相委员会和赔偿等恢复性司法机制来处理过去的人权侵害。过渡国家现在将过渡司法视为通向合法性和稳定的途径。恢复性司法的倡导者声称，真相委员会和赔偿在带来各种积极的社会成果，包括改善人权、民主发展和巩固和平方面发挥着关键的因果作用。尽管恢复性司法话语在全球传播，国内真相委员会和赔偿政策也被广泛采用，但几乎没有证据表明恢复性司法实际上有效。本项目将解决的第一个研究问题是：恢复性司法机制是否有助于改善人权、民主发展和巩固和平？如果有助于，如何促进？其次，如果恢复性司法没有这些积极的影响，那么为什么恢复性司法政策如此广泛地传播，为什么州政府官员、倡导者和学者继续声称政策的有效性？运用多方法、多层次的方法来解释恢复性司法扩散并评估其在全球和次国家层面的影响，本研究将澄清政策扩散的解释，并建立不同形式的司法（如报应性、恢复性）与和解之间的关系。它将提供一个急需的证据基础，以帮助指导政策设计，并帮助将资源引导到最具影响力的过渡时期司法和建设和平方案中；它将有助于当前关于如何实现可持续和平的政策辩论。为了对政策扩散的不同解释进行实证检验，主要研究者（pi）统计分析了来自美国国家科学基金会支持的过渡司法研究合作（TJRC）数据库的跨国数据。他们还利用最近在哥伦比亚实地工作中新收集的中尺度和微观层面的数据来确定新的扩散途径，并构建不同的（非地理）空间接近度度量。为了评估恢复性司法对人权、民主和和平结果的影响，pi统计分析了TJRC数据库中的跨国数据，以及哈佛大学领导的哥伦比亚人口调查中最近完成的微观层面数据。在美国国家科学基金会博士论文改进基金的支持下，pi将在哥伦比亚实施一项创新的调查实验，以探索恢复性司法与和解之间的关系——这是恢复性司法支持者最常声称的结果。利用实验小插曲方法（EVM），该方法使用调查抽样方法产生一系列实验对象和实验方法，随机将参与者分配到自变量的变体中，他们将测试不同的司法规定（例如恢复性、报应性、分配性和程序性）如何影响个人对和解的判断。在过渡时期，这些司法规定是通过刑事起诉、真相委员会和赔偿等过渡时期司法程序实现的。实验实地调查有助于建立和澄清不同形式的正义与和解之间的路径，并将用于探索不同形式和组合的正义如何改变对和解的主观判断。研究设计借鉴了基本的比较设计，根据比较设计，从不同群体中随机选择个体进行比较。pi将对普通民众、战争受害者和非裔哥伦比亚人进行比较。PIs借鉴政治学、社会学和人类学的见解，以研究全球和次国家层面的恢复性司法动态。

Increasingly, states are choosing restorative justice mechanisms such as truth commissions and reparations to address past human rights harms. Transitional states now see transitional justice as a route to legitimacy and stability. Restorative justice advocates claim that truth commissions and reparations play a critical causal role in bringing about a diverse set of positive societal outcomes including improving human rights, democratic development, and consolidating peace. Despite the global diffusion of the restorative justice discourse and the widespread adoption of domestic truth commissions and reparations policies, there is little evidence that restorative justice actually works. The first research question this project will address is: do restorative justice mechanisms contribute to improvements in human rights, democratic development, and peace consolidation, and if so, how? Second, if restorative justice does not have these positive impacts, then why have restorative justice policies diffused so widely and why do state officials, advocates, and academics continue to make claims about policy efficacy? Applying a multi-method, multi-level approach to explain restorative justice diffusion and evaluate its impacts at the global and subnational levels, the research will clarify explanations for policy diffusion, and establish the relationship between different forms of justice (e.g. retributive, restorative) and reconciliation. It will provide a much-needed evidence base to help guide policy design and help channel resources into the most impactful transitional justice and peacebuilding programs; and it will contribute to current policy debates about how to achieve sustainable peace. To empirically test different explanations for policy diffusion, the principal investigators (PIs) statistically analyze cross-national data from the NSF-supported Transitional Justice Research Collaborative (TJRC) database. They also utilize newly collected meso- and micro-level data from recent field work in Colombia to identify new diffusion pathways and construct different measures of (non-geographic) spatial nearness. To evaluate the impact of restorative justice on human rights, democracy, and peace outcomes, the PIs statistically analyze cross-national data from the TJRC database and micro-level data from a recently completed Harvard-led population-based survey in Colombia. Supported by the NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant, the PIs will implement an innovative survey experiment in Colombia to explore the relationship between restorative justice and reconciliation -- the most commonly claimed outcome among restorative justice supporters. Utilizing an experimental vignette methodology (EVM), which uses survey sampling methods to produce a collection of experimental subjects and experimental methods to randomly assign participants to variations of the independent variable, they will test how different provisions of justice (e.g. restorative, retributive, distributive, and procedural) impact individual judgments about reconciliation. In transitional settings, these provisions of justice are delivered through transitional justice processes such as criminal prosecutions, truth commissions, and reparations. The experimental field survey helps establish and clarify pathways between different forms of justice and reconciliation, and will be used to explore how different forms and combinations of justice change subjective judgments about reconciliation. The research design draws from a basic comparative design according to which randomly selected individuals from different groups are compared. The PIs will make comparisons, among others, between the general population, war victims, and Afro-Colombians. The PIs draw on insights from political science, sociology, and anthropology in order to study restorative justice dynamics at the global and subnational levels.