This research examines why truth commissions have proliferated worldwide and become a standard component of the transitional justice repertoire, in spite of a lack of evidence that the institution is viable or beneficial in diverse contexts. Drawing on world society theory, the article argues that rationalized myths about the value of truth telling have driven the diffusion of truth commissions. Data from 34 founding charters reveal that a commission’s objectives do not necessarily correspond with the precipitating conflict or political transition, but are highly shaped by three external channels of influence: the United Nations, international consultants, and regional proximity. By identifying distinct actors that have developed and promoted different rationalized myths, the article refines world society theory’s tendency to present routine uninhabited diffusion of a single institutional model. Instead, truth commissions provide evidence of the uneven spread of a multifarious global institution.
BeckfieldJ (2008) The dual world polity: Fragmentation and integration in the network of intergovernmental organizations. Social Problems55(3): 419–442.
4.
BellC (2009) Transitional justice, interdisciplinarity and the state of the ‘field’ or ‘non-field’. International Journal of Transitional Justice3(1): 5–27.
5.
BrahmE (2009) What is a truth commission and why does it matter?Peace and Conflict Review3(2): 1–14.
6.
Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (2013) Justice in perspective. Available at: www.justiceinperspective.org.za/ (accessed 10 April 2013).
7.
ChapmanARBallPPD (2001) The truth of truth commissions: Comparative lessons from Haiti, South Africa, and Guatemala. Human Rights Quarterly23(1): 1–43.
8.
ColeWM (2012) Human rights as myth and ceremony? Reevaluating the effectiveness of human rights treaties, 1981–2007. American Journal of Sociology117(4): 1131–1171.
9.
DalyE (2008) Truth skepticism: An inquiry into the value of truth in times of transition. International Journal of Transitional Justice2(1): 23–41.
10.
DroriGS (2008) Institutionalism and globalization studies. In: GreenwoodROliverCSahlin-AnderssonKSuddabyR (eds) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: Sage, pp. 449–472.
11.
FreemanM (2006) Truth Commissions and Procedural Fairness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Gaceta Oficial del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (2012) Supreme Decree No. 19241. 28October1982.
13.
GibsonJL (2004) Does truth lead to reconciliation? Testing the causal assumptions of the South African truth and reconciliation process. American Journal of Political Science48(2): 201–217.
14.
GoJ (2012) For a postcolonial sociology. Theory and Society42(1): 25–55.
15.
GoodmanRJinksD (2013) Socializing States: Promoting Human Rights through International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
GonzálezEVarneyH (2013) Truth Seeking: Elements of Creating an Effective Truth Commission. New York: International Center for Transitional Justice.
17.
Government of Kenya (2008) Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission Act. Nairobi.
18.
Hafner-BurtonEMTsutsuiK (2005) Human rights in a globalizing world: The paradox of empty promises. American Journal of Sociology110(5): 1373–1411.
19.
Hafner-BurtonEMTsutsuiKMeyerJW (2008) International human rights law and the politics of legitimation: Repressive states and human rights treaties. International Sociology23(1): 115–141.
20.
HaynerPB (2011) Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions. New York: Routledge.
21.
International Center for Transitional Justice (2014) Challenging the conventional: Can truth commissions strengthen peace processes? Report. International Center for Transitional Justice, June.
22.
KoenigMDierkesJ (2011) Conflict in the world polity: Neo-institutional perspectives. Acta Sociologica54(1): 5–25.
23.
KooJWRamirezFO (2009) National incorporation of global human rights: Worldwide expansion of national human rights institutions, 1966–2004. Social Forces87(3): 1321–1353.
24.
LaminAR (2003) Building peace through accountability in Sierra Leone: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court. Journal of Asian and African Studies38(2–3): 295–320.
25.
MendeloffD (2004) Truth-seeking, truth-telling and postconflict peacebuilding: Curb the enthusiasm?International Studies Review6(3): 355–380.
26.
MeyerJW (2010) World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology36: 1–20.
27.
MeyerJWRowanB (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83(2): 340–363.
28.
MeyerJWBoliJThomasGM. (1997) World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology103(1): 144–181.
29.
NaqviY (2006) The right to the truth in international law: Fact or fiction?International Review of the Red Cross88(862): 245–273.
30.
National Transitional Legislative Assembly (2005) Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia Mandate.
31.
Office of the President (1995) Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act. No. 1111, 26July.
32.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2006) Rule-of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Truth Commissions. New York: United Nations.
33.
ParlevlietM (1998) Considering truth-dealing with a legacy of gross human rights violations. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights16(2): 141–174.
34.
QuinnJRFreemanM (2003) Lessons learned: Practical lessons gleaned from inside the truth commissions of Guatemala and South Africa. Human Rights Quarterly25(4): 1117–1149.
35.
ReiterAGOlsenTDPayneLA (2012) Transitional justice and civil war: Exploring new pathways, challenging old guideposts. Transitional Justice Review1(1): 137–169.
36.
RobinsonG (forthcoming) Derailing justice: The logic of serial investigations in East Timor. In: MeierhenrichJ (ed.) International Commissions: The Role of Commissions of Inquiry in the Investigation of International Crimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
RosouxV (2009) Reconciliation as a peace-building process: Scope and limits. In: BercovitchJKremenyukVZartmanIW (eds) The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution. London: Sage, pp. 543–560.
38.
ScottWR (2008) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Los Angeles: Sage.
39.
ShawR (2007) Memory frictions: Localizing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Sierra Leone. The International Journal of Transitional Justice1(2): 183–207.
40.
SikkinkK (2011) The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions are Changing World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
41.
SriramCL (2000) Truth commissions and the quest for justice: Stability and accountability after internal strife. International Peacekeeping7(4): 91–106.
42.
TolbertPSZuckerLG (1983) Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly28(1): 22–39.
43.
United Nations (1993) El Salvador: Mexico Peace Agreements – Provision Creating the Commission on Truth. UN Doc. S/25500, 27April1991. Mexico City.
