Resisting accountability: transitional justice in the post-9/11 United States

The field of transitional justice has traditionally focused on accountability for human rights violations amid regime change, often accompanied by democratisation, rebuilding states and revitalising national communities. But concepts drawn from transitional justice can also shed light on the dynamics of accountability within the ordinary course of political change in a stable and mature democracy. This article utilises transitional justice as a heuristic to frame the post-9/11 United States' effort to confront torture and other grave human rights violations committed in the war on terrorism. The article concludes that not seeking accountability in the face of political opposition and resistance carries significant costs. Terrorism poses particular concerns for adherence to human rights, even in mature democracies, given the multiple pressures to sacrifice liberty for security. A state's failure to pursue accountability may mitigate political controversy and avoid straining the social fabric, particularly where responsibility for torture and other illegal conduct reaches the top echelons of government. But it also propagates a competing security-based narrative that legitimises exceptions to the categorical moral judgements on which a robust and effective human rights regime depends.