This book explores the practical and theoretical opportunities as well as the challenges raised by the expansion of transitional justice into new and 'aparadigmatic' cases. The book defines transitional justice as the pursuit of accountability, recognition and/or disruption and applies an actor-centric analysis focusing on justice actors' intentions of and responses to transitional justice. It offers a typology of different transitional justice contexts ranging from societies experiencing ongoing conflict to consolidated democracies, and includes chapters from all types of aparadigmatic contexts. This covers transitional justice in states with contested political authority, shared political authority, and consolidated political authority. The transitional justice initiatives explored by the wide range of contributors are those of Afghanistan, Belgium, France, Greenland/Denmark, Libya, Syria, Turkey/Kurdistan, UK/Iraq, US, and Yemen. Through these aparadigmatic case studies, the book develops a new framework that, appropriate to its expanding reach, allows us to understand the practice of transitional justice in a more context-sensitive, bottom-up, and actor-oriented way, which leaves room for the complexity and messiness of interventions on the ground. The book will appeal to scholars and practitioners in the broad field of transitional justice, as represented in law, criminology, politics, conflict studies and human rights.

At the start of the twenty-first century the story of Africa's engagement with international law was one of marked commitment and meaningful contributions. Africa pioneered new areas of law and legal remedies, such as international criminal law and universal jurisdiction, and gave human rights jurisdiction to a number of new international courts. However, in recent years, African states have mobilised politically and collectively against the regional courts and the International Criminal Court, contesting these institutions' authority and legitimacy at national, regional and international levels. Africa and the Backlash Against International Courts provides the first comprehensive account of this important phenomenon, bringing together original fieldwork, empirical analysis and a critical overview of the diverse scholarship on both international and African regional courts. Moving beyond conventional explanations, Brett and Gissel use this remarkable research to show how the actions of African states should instead be seen as part of a growing desire for a more equal global order; a trend that not only has huge implications for Africa's international relations, but that could potentially change the entire practice of international law.

At the start of the twenty-first century the story of Africa's engagement with international law was one of marked commitment and meaningful contributions. Africa pioneered new areas of law and legal remedies, such as international criminal law and universal jurisdiction, and gave human rights jurisdiction to a number of new international courts. However, in recent years, African states have mobilised politically and collectively against the regional courts and the International Criminal Court, contesting these institutions' authority and legitimacy at national, regional and international levels. Africa and the Backlash Against International Courts provides the first comprehensive account of this important phenomenon, bringing together original fieldwork, empirical analysis and a critical overview of the diverse scholarship on both international and African regional courts. Moving beyond conventional explanations, Brett and Gissel use this remarkable research to show how the actions of African states should instead be seen as part of a growing desire for a more equal global order; a trend that not only has huge implications for Africa's international relations, but that could potentially change the entire practice of international law.