View article

This paper asks the question of how post-authoritarian states choose transitional justice mechanisms to address past repression. Specifically, it examines whether post-authoritarian states rely on maximalist (retributive justice ie Trials), moderate (restorative justice ie truth-commissions), or minimalist approach such as amnesties to address past human rights abuses. In this paper, we argue that post-authoritarian states experience increased civil-military friction and are more likely to experience coups. At the same, the leaders face pressures from the public and Human Rights Organizations (HROs) to address past repression. Under these circumstances, a leader is likely to opt moderate or minimalist approach to address past abuses because it allows a leader to stay in power but at the same time addresses HROs and masses concerns of holding former regimes officials accountable. We test our hypothesis using a cross-sectional and time series data of post-authoritarian regimes from 1970-2010.