Abstract
The basic question this paper asks is: in transitional regimes considering pursuing accountability for past human rights violations, are there instances where goods other than justice might appropriately be pursued? The paper seeks to answer this question not by adverting to very loaded contemporary debates on the matter, but rather by grounding the question (and answer) more firmly. Drawing on three rich traditions of political theory: utilitarianism, deontological liberalism and communitarianism, the answer is a very provisional yes. More importantly, however, I argue that such choices are contextual – what matters is not that there be one correct prescription for all societies, but options from which they may choose one most befitting their particular needs.
A brief examination of three traditions of political theory yields not definitive prescriptions for transitional regimes, but rather a set of concerns and issues to be considered. Utilitarianism may rightly caution us against pursuing justice or revenge at the expense of stability and aggregate utility, but will clearly suffer from the objection that the right has been sacrificed to the good. Similarly, from a rights-oriented and deontological perspective, certain sacrifices of justice to the greater good may be difficult to countenance, though other moral harms may be inflicted in the pursuit of justice. Finally, a communitarian will point us to the nature of the community to aid us in determining the appropriate path, though she may do so at the expense of the individual. Once the normative issues at stake are thus understood, individuals and societies may address the choices and dilemmas raised in transitions in ways appropriate to their specific contexts.