Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice?

(Routledge, 2021)

‘Greening’ Transitional Justice?

Rachel Killean* and Lauren Dempster†

Environmental destruction can act as both a source and consequence of conflict, atrocity, and
repression. From resource extraction as a means of funding conflict to the deliberate
destruction of habitats relied upon by targeted communities, violence and the environment have
a complex relationship which extends far beyond the cessation of hostilities. It is therefore
notable that environmental harms are often unseen and under-theorised in the context of
transitional justice. This chapter explores this historical invisibility and considers what a turn
towards a ‘green’ transitional justice might look like. To do so, it draws connections between
critical transitional justice scholarship and the growing field of green criminology, which has
sought to challenge the anthropocentrism of dominant framings of crime and harm. In
particular, the chapter explores transitional justice’s ‘dominance of legalism’, neocolonial
tendencies and ‘liberal imprints’, and interrogates their implications for the visibility of
environmental harm.

1. Introduction
Transitional justice is a ‘field’ of scholarship and practice capable of significant change and
expansion (Teitel, 2003: 83). In practice, expansion has included the situations to which it
applies, the mechanisms it employs and the actors that implement those mechanisms (Zunino,
2019). Accompanying these expansions has been the growth of a diverse interdisciplinary
scholarship (Nagy, 2008: 275), increasingly characterised by a willingness to interrogate
transitional justice’s ‘foundational blind spots and limitations’ (Sharp, 2019: 571). While this
willingness has led to a ‘broader and more holistic’ transitional justice project (Sharp, 2019:
571), ‘blind spots and limitations’ inevitably remain. This chapter highlights one such blind
spot: the relative invisibility of environmental harm.i

Environmental harm is deeply interlinked with periods of conflict, atrocity and repression.
Unequal access to natural resources can motivate conflict (Lawry-White, 2017), with almost
half of internal conflicts relating to natural resource exploitation (UNEP, 2009). Deliberate

*
Queen’s University Belfast, corresponding email address: rachel.killean@qub.ac.uk
†
Queen’s University Belfast

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

environmental destruction has been adopted as a tactic against targeted groups (Peterson,
2009), while authoritarian regimes have been linked to harmful policies of resource extraction
and related human rights abuses (Kenney-Lazar, 2019). The environmental impacts of violence
can be severe; periods of conflict have ‘scorched the earth, eradicated species, destroyed entire
ecosystems and rendered large swathes of land uninhabitable’ (Brisman and South, 2013: 64).
Impacts can be long-term and wide-ranging, causing mass refugee movements, depleting the
natural resources available for social reconstruction, and generating toxic remnants of war that
exacerbate the climate crisis (Werrell and Fermia, 2018). Processes of transition can in turn
bring their own harms, including unsustainable resource extraction, deforestation and land
conflicts (Suarez et al., 2018).

While the interconnections between violence, transition and environmental harm have received
growing international recognition, they have remained relatively under-explored in transitional
justice (Clark, 2016: 1207). Recent years have seen changes in this regard. For example:
increased attention has been paid to the harms of colonialism, land expropriation and large-
scale environmental degradation (Brinton Lykes and Van Der Merwe, 2017; Izquierdo and
Viaene, 2018; Murdock, 2018), and the relationships between victims and their environments
(Clark, 2020). Scholars have explored the extension of transitional justice to natural disasters
(Bradley, 2017) and climate change (Klinsky and Brankovic, 2019). Arguments in favour of
prosecuting environmental harms have gathered steam (Lindgren, 2018; Gillett, 2017; Lay et
al., 2015) and the potential for ‘greener’ forms of memorialisation and reparation have been
considered (Clark, 2016; Killean, 2021).

This chapter contributes to this emerging literature by bringing transitional justice scholarship
into conversation with green criminology, a field which seeks to expose environmental harms,
‘their causes and potential remedial actions’ (Lay et al., 2015: 432). In doing so, we explore
the historic invisibility of environmental harms and begin to sketch the contours of a ‘green’
transitional justice. The benefits of a criminological lens have been noted by others: McEvoy
has asserted that criminology ‘can assist in developing a “thicker” understanding of transitional
justice’ (2007: 433), while criminology’s characterisation as a ‘rendezvous subject’ (Downes,
1988) has been highlighted as particularly appropriate in the context of environmental issues
(Brisman and South, 2020: 40).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

The chapter brings a green criminology lens to three key critiques of transitional justice. In Part
2, we examine how the ‘dominance of legalism’ has excluded environmental harm and explore
how a green criminology lens can expand our understandings of victimhood. In Part 3, we
consider how transitional justice’s neocolonial tendencies have excluded other ways of
knowing and relating to the environment, and the ways in which these alternative perspectives
might be captured in a green transitional justice ‘from below’. In Part 4, we critique transitional
justice’s ‘liberal imprint’ and sympathy for capitalism and consider the potential of an
environmentally transformative justice. Part 5 concludes.

2. Legalism, Anthropocentrism and (In)Visible Harms

While transitional justice can incorporate psychosocial, socioeconomic and political aspects of
justice (Lambourne, 2009), a focus on law as the ‘means to achieve justice’ has remained
central to scholarship and practice (Turner, 2013: 199; Zunino, 2019: 42-43). This ‘dominance
of legalism’ (McEvoy, 2007) shapes both the mechanisms employed and the ways in which
harms are framed and understood. Dominant legal framings can be ‘blind to certain forms of
injustice’ (Nagy, 2008: 276) and often fail to capture environmental harm. This exclusion can
be traced to law’s traditional emphasis on ‘man’ as it’s central personage (Valverde, 2017: 549)
and focus on human actions which cause ‘harm to the health or business of humans from a very
anthropocentric and economic perspective’ (Wyatt et al., 2013: 7).

These perspectives emerge in the specific legal frameworks which ‘dominate’ transitional
justice. Violations of civil and political rights or ‘criminal acts’ are often prioritised (Nagy,
2008: 284), excluding socio-economic and cultural rights (several of which pertain to
environmental rights, see Nurse, 2016: 88-89), structural violence (Balint et al., 2014; Rooney
and Ní Aoláin, 2018) and discriminatory practices (Nagy, 2008). To the extent that
environmental harms are visible, they are often addressed through the lens of individuals’
personal or property rights (Stahn et al., 2017), returning to ‘man’ as ‘the point of reference’
(Lynch et al., 2019: 12). While critical scholarship has sought to challenge these dominant
frameworks for ‘the lives they ignore, the injustices they fail to see and the patriarchal and
racialized power structures that remain intact and unexamined’ (Rooney and Ní Aoláin, 2018:
4), these critiques have rarely foregrounded environmental harm.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

Bringing this critical scholarship into dialogue with green criminology invites greater
examination of environmental harms perpetrated legally or with impunity (Beirne and South,
2007). These might include harms resulting directly from environmental destruction, for
example pollution, deforestation and the misuse of animals, or ‘secondary’ crimes that follow
this destruction, such as poaching and the creation of illegal markets for food, medicine or
other resources (Carrabine et al., 2004). These ‘crimes’ can be a cause, method and outcome
of violence and repression (Lynch et al., 2020; McClanahan et al., 2019; Lindgren, 2018) yet
are rarely framed as criminal acts requiring transitional justice intervention. While a solely
criminal response has shown itself to be an inadequate response to systematic and diffuse harms
(Klinsky and Brankovic, 2019: 28), expanding understandings of crime, whether through the
introduction of an international crime of ecocide or other means (Higgins, 2010; Higgins et al.,
2013), presents one avenue for challenging anthropocentric and economic frameworks of
transitional justice.

These challenges are necessary if we are to move beyond ‘our traditional view of the victim’
(Bisschop and Walle, 2013: 48) to recognise victims of environmental harm. While transitional
justice has been praised for its power to make ‘victims visible’ (De Greiff, 2020: 252), legalistic
approaches inevitably shape who is categorised as a victim of conflict (García Godos and Lid,
2010). This often excludes human victims of environmental harm (White, 2018: 240) and non-
human entities (Lynch et al., 2019; Varona, 2020). Indeed, while environmental victimhood
has received some recognition within transitional justice processes, notably in Colombia
(McClanahan et al., 2019: 76) and Peru (Falcón, 2018), such recognition remains relatively
exceptional.

Green victimology can make a valuable contribution here. This literature is characterised by a
strong focus on advocating for the ‘less visible’ (Bisschop and Walle, 2013: 48) but diverse
victims of environmental harm (Williams, 1996; Hall, 2013; Jarrell and Ozymy, 2012; Varona,
2020). It highlights the racism (Bullard, 1993; Sampson and Winter, 2016, gender inequalities
(Merchant, 1996; Gaarder, 2013; Wachholz, 2007), speciesism (Sollund, 2008; Wyatt, 2013)
and other inequalities that leave those most impacted by environmental harm voiceless (Crook
et al., 2018; Goyes, 2016; 2019), directing our gaze to the rights of ecosystems, non-human
animals, future generations and indigenous peoples (Mehta and Merz, 2015). Incorporating the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

voices of these groups and entities is arguably crucial in any ‘greening’ of transitional justice,
as we explore further in the following section.

3. Neocolonialism and Transitional Justice ‘From Below’

Transitional justice has been critiqued for its neocolonial tendency to deem indigenous or
‘traditional’ practices incompatible with the justice and human rights norms mandated by the
international community (An-Na’im, 2013; Brankovic and van der Merwe, 2018). The
prioritisation of legal forms of individual accountability and retribution speaks to the
dominance of Eurocentric norms characteristic of the global north (Okello et al., 2012). Critical
scholars have highlighted the propensity to conceive of transitional justice programmes in the
global north but implement them in the global south (Madlingozi, 2010; Balint et al., 2014;
Benyera, 2019; Yusuf, 2018), resulting in the imposition of ‘“one-size-fits-all”, technocratic
and decontextualised solutions’ (Nagy, 2008: 275). Despite increased recognition of these
critiques, ‘transitional justice remains quite white’ (McEvoy, 2018: 189).

As Nagy argues, ‘in the determination of who is accountable for what and when, transitional
justice is a discourse and practice imbued with power’ (Nagy, 2008: 286). Indeed, the
relationship between power and the production of knowledge is well established.ii In
transitional justice, the dominance of western intellectual and legal traditions silences ‘other
subaltern ways of knowing’ and creates a field which appears ‘unable or unwilling to envisage
ways of knowing that surpass our own imagination’ (Vielle, 2012: 67). In particular,
transitional justice can overlook or marginalise the experiences of indigenous communities
(Santamaría et al., 2020); women (Gerodetti, 2016; Weber, 2018), children (Billingsley, 2018)
and of course the relationship between harm and how these identities intersect (Rooney and Ní
Aoláin, 2018).

There is an emerging realisation of the need to acknowledge ‘discounted and disregarded

voices’ (Rooney and Ní Aoláin, 2018: 2) and particularly, where relevant, ‘indigenous
worldviews’ (Balint et al., 2014: 215). There are notable examples of approaches that engage
with contextual particularities and ‘indigenous knowledge’ (such as the practice of Girinka in
Rwanda (see Ezeanya 2014)), however such instances remain the exception rather than the
rule. Excluding indigenous perspectives can render invisible (in some cases) world views
which may frame relationships between humans and nature as interdependent, and harms

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

against the environment as violations requiring redress (see e.g., Izquierdo and Viaene, 2018;
Murdock, 2018). ‘Greening’ transitional justice may therefore require a fundamental process
of decolonising knowledge, moving away from a ‘belief in abstract universals’ (Mignolo,
2007). Such an approach would question the dominance of global north perspectives,
incorporating the knowledge(s) of the global south and indigenous communities for alternative
understandings of violence, harm, and crime (Aas, 2012; Carrington et al., 2019; Crook et al.,
2018). This might, for example, recognise forests as important parts of people’s identities and
lived experiences, as well as living spaces deserving of protection and reparative measures in
their own right (Klinsky and Brankovic, 2019: 165).

We argue that the transitional justice ‘from below’ framework can contribute here. In their
foundational examination of this framework, McEvoy and McGregor (2008: 5) propose
exploring ‘the praxis of grassroots actors who have taken on transitional responsibilities
themselves.’ This requires – to draw on Said (1988: 58) – that those impacted by harm are
given ‘permission…to narrate’ (see also Spivak, 1988). Incorporating greater environmental
awareness into a ‘from below’ approach would involve centring responses to conflict in the
lived experiences of people and their natural environments (Clark, 2020). Thus, survivors and
environmental activists can become ‘active agents’ in transitional justice processes (Zilney et
al., 2006), bringing alternative perspectives forward and pressuring states and other elite actors
to pursue appropriate responses.

Taking this further, we suggest that transitional justice’s tendency to ‘strengthen’ the state
(Balint et al., 2014: 201) and reinforce ‘existing relations of power’ (Kent, 2016:2; see also
Park, 2020) may limit the possibilities for alternative voices to be heard. Drawing from critical
environmental justice scholarship, we might therefore consider the value of ‘decentring’ the
state’s role in ‘green’ transitional justice, an approach which ‘deprives the state of the power
to define the issues and their solutions’ and instead encourages communities to name the issues
they face and develop appropriate responses (Park, 2020: 276). Indeed, an approach which
encourages ‘thinking and acting beyond the state’ (Pellow, 2016: 229), and invokes methods
and principles of ‘mutual engagement and shared learning’ might be both practical and
‘consonant with green ideals’ (Brisman and South, 2013: 66).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

4. Challenging ‘Liberal Imprints’

Transitional justice has been shaped by the historical context in which it emerged, namely the
post-Cold War rise of liberal democracy and associated decline of left-wing political
movements (Klinsky and Brankovic, 2019: 155). The influence of contemporary liberal
democratic theory is evidenced by the field’s support for political and economic liberalisation
and prioritisation of human rights discourse (Arthur, 2009). Although praised for its
contributions to democracy and rule of law, this ‘liberal imprint’ (Zunino, 2019: 51) has been
critiqued for its sympathies with free-market ideology and associated privatisation and
deregulation (Sriram, 2007). In practice, this reliance on macroeconomic growth often leads to
further victimisation, social injustice and ‘polarization, which looms like social and economic
dynamite’ (LaPlante, 2008: 339).

These ‘liberal imprints’ have significant consequences for the environment. Liberalism’s
failure to recognise economic, social and ecological interdependence has long been critiqued
by critical environmental political theorists (Eckersley, 2020). Similarly, political ecologists
and green criminologists have highlighted capitalism’s reliance on the exploitation and
commodification of the natural world (Burkett, 2008; Brennan, 2000; Foster, 1992). While the
links between capitalism, the rise of neoliberalism and the current climate and biodiversity
crises are increasingly undeniable (Waheed et al., 2019; Lynch et al., 2019), transitional justice
policies continue to be implemented alongside ‘reforms to foster a growing capitalist economy’
(Zunino, 2019: 55).

A transitional justice process grounded in capitalist sympathies and neoliberal market reform
will facilitate future environmental injustices and destruction (Lynch et al., 2019; Kenney-
Lazar, 2019). Such an approach also risks failing to produce lasting peace, as ‘a transitional
justice that is at odds with social and environmental justice’ may only ‘further the scope, extent
and spectrums of violence’ (McClanahan et al., 2019: 82). These critiques find resonance with
arguments found in transformative justice scholarship, which has highlighted transitional
justice’s reluctance to challenge ‘international and national power dynamics and resource
distribution’ (Klinsky and Brankovic, 2019: 154). Transformative justice advocates have
instead called for measures which consider socioeconomic, political and ecological aspects
(Lambourne, 2009) and which contribute to transforming structural inequalities (Evans, 2016).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

This in turn resonates with green criminologists’ calls for ‘transformative (rather than primarily
reformist) approaches to realize environmental justice’ (Pellow, 2016: 224) which interrogate
and confront the political economy of environmental harm (Lynch et al., 2019).

Cautionary voices have called for modesty when exploring the transformative potential of
transitional justice, noting that ‘no process or set of transitional justice processes can by itself
fundamentally transform a community’ (Murphy, 2020: 57; see also McAuliffe, 2017).
Nonetheless, it is worth considering whether moments of rupture such as those that accompany
transitions may present ‘rare opportunities’ for ‘radical progressive change’ and greater
recognition of the interdependence of human and non-human beings (Chatzidakis et al., 2020:
96-97). A ‘green’ transitional justice might consider integrating economic models that place
stronger emphasis on democratic control of the economy and protection of the environment
(e.g., Pettifor, 2020; Raworth, 2017; Merino, 2016; Barbier and Markandya, 2013), rather than
continuing to ‘naturalise capitalism’ (Drumbl, 2019: 1453).

5. Conclusion

This chapter brought three key critiques of transitional justice into dialogue with green
criminology. First, we highlighted how the dominance of legalism has rendered environmental
harm invisible and considered the possibilities of more holistic understandings of harm and
victimhood. Second, we explored how transitional justice’s neocolonial tendencies exclude
certain communities and perspectives and emphasised the potential of centring ‘from below’
responses to environmental harm. Third, we argued that transitional justice’s ‘liberal imprint’
and resulting sympathy for capitalism risks entrenching structural inequalities and causing
severe future environmental harms. In doing so we have sought to make a modest contribution
to a growing literature which considers the possibilities of greater environmental awareness
within transitional justice practice and scholarship.

Inevitably, this chapter raises more questions than it answers with regards to meaningfully
addressing environmental harm in the aftermath of conflict, repression and atrocity. Our aim
here has not been to provide definitive answers, but to begin to sketch out the contours of what
a ‘green’ transitional justice might look like. Significant further theoretical and empirical
research is needed to understand how framings of harm, modalities of repair and processes of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

development and reform might address environmental harms in practice. Yet, we believe that
transitional justice offers fruitful opportunities for developing creative solutions and preventing
future environmental destruction. Transitional justice has shown itself capable of effecting
profound and rapid shifts in international norms, suggesting that it may be an effective vehicle
for spreading environmentally conscious norms. With climate change and mass extinction
exacerbating the capitalist exploitation of natural resources and increasing the risks of future
conflicts, the need to consider the possibilities of a ‘green’ transitional justice has never been
greater.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

References

Katja Aas, ‘‘The Earth is one but the world is not’: Criminological theory and its geopolitical
divisions’ Theoretical Criminology 16(1) (2012) 5-20.

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, ‘From the Neocolonial ‘Transitional’ to Indigenous Formations

of Justice’ IJTJ 7(2) (2013) 197-204.

Paige Arthur, ‘How “Transitions” Reshaped Human Rights’ Human Rights Quarterly 31
(2009) 321-367.

Jennifer Balint, Julie Evansy and Nesam McMillan, ‘Rethinking Transitional Justice,
Redressing Indigenous Harm’ IJTJ 8(2) (2014) 194-216.

Edward Barbier and Anil Markandya, A New Blueprint for a Green Economy (Routledge,
2013).

Piers Beirne and Nigel South, Issues in Green Criminology (Willan Publishing, 2007).

Everisto Benyera, Indigenous, Traditional and Non-State Transitional Justice in Southern

Africa (Rowman and Littlefield, 2019).

Krista Billingsley, ‘Intersectionality as Locality: Children and Transitional Justice in Nepal’

IJTJ 12(1) (2018) 64-87.

Lieselot Bisschop and Gudrun Vande Walle, ‘Environmental Victimisation and Conflict
Resolution’ in Reece Walters et al., Emerging Issues in Green Criminology (Palgrave
MacMillan, 2013) 34-54.

Megan Bradley, ‘More than Misfortune: Recognizing Natural Disasters as a Concern for
Transitional Justice’ IJTJ 11 (2017) 400.

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

Jasmina Brankovic and Hugo Van Der Merwe, Advocating Transitional Justice in Africa
(Spring Press, 2018).

Teresa Brennan, Exhausting Modernity (Routledge, 2000).

M Brinton Lykes and Hugo Van Der Merwe, ‘Exploring/Expanding the Reach of Transitional
Justice’ IJTJ 11(3) (2017) 371-377.

Avi Brisman and Nigel South, ‘Resource Wealth, Power, Crime and Conflict’ in Reece Walters
et al., Emerging Issues in Green Criminology (Palgrave MacMillan, 2013) 57-71.

Avi Brisman and Nigel South, ‘The Growth of a Field’ in Avi Brisman and Nigel South (eds),
Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology (Routledge, 2020) 39-51.

Paul Burkett, Marxism and Ecological Economics (Haymarket Books, 2008).

Robert Bullard (ed.), Confronting Environmental Racism (South End Press, 1993).

Robert Bullard (ed), The Quest for Environmental Justice (Sierra Club Books, 2005).

Eamonn Carrabine et al., Criminology: A Sociological Introduction (Routledge, 2004).

Kerry Carrington et al., ‘Criminologies of the Global South: Critical Reflections’ Critical
Criminology 27(1) (2019) 163-189.

Audrey Chapman and Hugo van der Merwe, Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa (UPP,
2008)

Andreas Chatzidakis et al., The Care Manifesto (Verso, 2020).

Janine Natalya Clark, ‘Are there “Greener” Ways of Doing Transitional Justice?’ International
Journal of Human Rights 20(8) (2016) 1199-1218.

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

Janine Natalya Clark, ‘Re-Thinking Memory and Transitional Justice: A Novel Application of
Ecological Memory’ Memory Studies (2020) https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698020959813

Martin Crook, Damien Short and Nigel South, ‘Ecocide, Genocide, Capitalism and
Colonialism.’ Theoretical Criminology 22(3) (2018) 298–317.

Pablo De Greiff, ‘The Future of the Past: Reflections on the Present State and Prospects of
Transitional Justice’ IJTJ 14(2) (2020) 251-259.

David Downes, ‘The Sociology of Crime and Social Control in Britain, 1960–87,’ The British
Journal of Criminology, 28(2) (1988) 175–187.

Mark Drumbl, ‘Marcos Zunino. Justice Framed: A Genealogy of Transitional Justice’ EJIL
30 (2019): 1447–1463.

Robyn Eckersley, ‘Ecological Democracy and the Rise and Decline of Liberal Democracy’
Environmental Politics 29(2) (2020) 214-234.

Matthew Evans, ‘Structural Violence, Socioeconomic Rights, and Transformative Justice’

Journal of Human Rights 15(1) (2016) 1-20.

Chika Ezeanya, ‘Indigenous Knowledge, Economic Empowerment and Entrepreneurship in

Rwanda’ The Journal of Pan African Studies 6(10) (2014) 241-263.

Sylvanna Falcón, ‘Intersectionality and the Arts’ IJTJ 12(1) (2018) 26-44.

John Foster, ‘The Absolute General Law of Environmental Degradation Under Capitalism’
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 3 (3) (1992) 77–82.

Emily Gaarder, ‘Evading Responsibility for Green Harm,’ in Nigel South and Avi Brisman
(eds.) Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology (Routledge, 2013) 272-281.

Jemima Garcia-Godis and Knut Andreas O. Lid, ‘Transitional Justice and Victims' Rights
before the End of a Conflict’ Journal of Latin American Studies 42(3) (2010) 487-516.

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

Natalia Gerodetti ‘Whose Reparation Claims Count?’ Australian Feminist Law Journal 42(1)
(2016) 97-118.

Matthew Gillett, ‘Eco-Struggles’ in Carsten Stahn, Jens Iverson and Jennifer Easterday (eds)
Environmental Protection and Transitions from Conflict to Peace (OUP, 2017).

David Rodríguez Goyes, ‘Green Activist Criminology and the Epistemologies of the South’
Critical Criminology 24(4) (2016) 503–518.

David Rodríguez Goyes, Southern Green Criminology (Emerald Publishing, 2019).

Matthew Hall, Victims of Environmental Harm (Routledge, 2013).

Polly Higgins, Eradicating Ecocide (Shepheard-Walwyn, 2010)

Polly Higgins, Damien Short and Nigel South, ‘Protecting the Planet’ Crime, Law and Social
Change 59(1) (2013).

Belkis Izquierdo and Liesolotte Viaene, ‘Decolonizing Transitional Justice from Indigenous
Territories’ Peace in Progress 34 (2018).

Melissa Jarrell and Joshia Ozymy, ‘Real Crime, Real Victims’ Crime, Law and Social Change
58(4) (2012) 373–389.

Miles Kenney-Lazar, ‘Neoliberalizing Authoritarian Environmental Governance in

(Post)Socialist Laos’ Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109(2) (2019).

Lia Kent ‘Transitional Justice in Law, History and Anthropology’ Australian Feminist Law
Journal 42(1) (2016) 1-11.

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

Rachel Killean, ‘Imagining Reparations for Environmental Destruction’ in E. Palmer, S. Harris

Rimmer and E. Bikundo, Futures of International Criminal Justice (Routledge, forthcoming
2021).

Sonya Klinsky and Jasmina Brankovic, The Global Climate Regime and Transitional Justice
(Routledge, 2019).

Wendy Lambourne, ‘Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding after Mass Violence’ IJTJ 3
(2009) 28.

Lisa LaPlante, ‘Transitional Justice and Peace Building’ IJTJ 2(3) (2008) 331-355.

Merryl Lawry-White, ‘Victims of Environmental Harm During Conflict’ in Carsten Stahn, Jens
Iverson and Jennifer S. Easterday (eds), Environmental Protection and Transitions from
Conflict to Peace (OUP, 2017).

Bronwyn Lay et al., ‘Timely and Necessary: Ecocide Law as Urgent and Emerging’ Journal
Jurisprudence 28 (2015): 431-452.

Tim Lindgren, ‘Ecocide, Genocide and the Disregard of Alternative Life-Systems’ The
International Journal of Human Rights 22(4) (2018) 525-549.

Michael J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice (Palgrave
MacMillan, 2019).

Michael J. Lynch et al., ‘Green Criminology and State-Corporate Crime’ Journal of Genocide
Research (2020).

Tshepo Madlingozi, ‘On Transitional Justice Entrepreneurs and the Production of Victims’
Journal of Human Rights Practice 2(2) (2010) 208-228.

Padraig McAuliffe, Transformative Transitional Justice and the Malleability of Post-Conflict

States (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017).

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

Bill McClanahan, Tatiana Sanchez Parra and Avi Brisman, ‘Conflict, Environment and
Transition’ International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 8(3) (2019) 74-88.

Kieran McEvoy, ‘Beyond Legalism’ Journal of Law and Society 34(4) (2007) 411-440.

Kieran McEvoy, ‘Travel, Dilemmas and Nonrecurrence’ IJTJ 12 (2018) 185-193.

Kieran McEvoy and Lorna McGregor, Transitional Justice From Below (Hart Publishing,
2008).

Sailesh Mehta and Prisca Merz, ‘Ecocide – a New Crime Against Peace?’ Environmental Law
Review 17(1)(2015) 3-7.

Carolyn Merchant, Earthcare (Routledge, 1996).

Roger Merino, ‘An Alternative to “Alternative Development”? Buen Vivir and Human
Development in Andrean Countries’ Oxford Development Studies 44(3) (2016) 271-286.

Walter Mignolo, 'Delinking' Cultural Studies 21(2) (2007) 449-514.

Esme Murdock, ‘Storied with Land’ Journal of Global Ethics 14(2) (2018) 232-239.

Colleen Murphy, ‘On Principled Compromise’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 120(1)
(2020) 47-70.

Rosemary Nagy, ‘Transitional Justice as Global Project’, Third World Quarterly 29(2) (2008)
275-289.

Angus Nurse, An Introduction to Green Criminology and Environmental Justice (Sage, 2016).

Moses Chrispus Okello et al., Where Law Meets Reality (Pambazuka Press, 2012).

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

Augustine Park, ‘Settler Colonialism, Decolonization and Radicalizing Transitional Justice’

IJTJ 14(2) (2020) 260-279.

David Pellow, ‘Toward a Critical Environmental Justice Studies’ Du Bois Review 13(2) (2016)
221-236.

Ines Peterson, ‘The Natural Environment in Times of Armed Conflict’, Leiden Journal of
International Law 22 (2009): 331.

Ann Pettifor, The Case for the Green New Deal (Verso, 2020).

Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics (Random House, 2017).

Eilish Rooney and Fionualla Ní Aoláin, ‘Transitional Justice from the Margins’ IJTJ 12(1)
(2018) 1-8.

Edward Said, ‘Identity, Negation and Violence’ New Left Review 171 (1988) 46-60.

Rojer Sampson and Alix Winter, ‘The Racial Ecology of Lead Poisoning’, 1995–2013,’ Du
Bois Review 13(2) (2016) 261–283.

Angela Santamaría et al., ‘Decolonial Sketches and Intercultural Approaches to Truth’ IJTJ
14(1) (2020) 56-79.

Dustin Sharp, ‘What Would Satisfy Us?’ IJTJ 13 (2019): 570-589.

Ragnhild Sollund, ‘Causes for Speciesism’ in Ragnhild Sollund (ed.) Global Harms (Nova
Science Publishers, 2008) 109-129.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘Can the subaltern speak?’ in Cary Nelson and Lawrence
Grossberg (eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (Macmillan, 1988) 24-28.

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

Chandra Lekha Sriram, ‘Justice as Peace? Liberal Peacebuilding and Strategies of Transitional
Justice’ Global Society 21(4) (2007): 579-591.

Carsten Stahn, Jens Iverson and Jennifer Easterday (eds) Environmental Protection and
Transitions from Conflict to Peace (OUP, 2017).

Andres Suarez, Paola Andrea Arias-Arevalo and Eliana Martinez-Mera, ‘Environmental

Sustainability in Post-Conflict Countries’, Environmental Development Sustainability 20
(2018): 997-1015.

Ruti Teitel, ‘Transitional Justice Genealogy,’ Harvard Human Rights Journal 16 (2003): 69.

Catherine Turner, ‘Deconstructing Transitional Justice’ Law and Critique 24 (2013) 193-209.

UNEP, Sudan: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment (UNEP, 2007).

Gema Varona, ‘Restorative Pathways after Mass Environmental Victimization’ Oñati Socio-
Legal Series 10(3) (2020): 664-685.

Mariana Valverde, ‘From Persons and Their Acts to Webs of Relationships’ Crime, Law and
Social Change 68 (2017) 547 – 562.

Stephanie Vielle, ‘Transitional Justice: A Colonizing Field?’ Amsterdam Law Forum 4(3)
(2012) 58-68.

Sandra Wachholz, ‘At Risk’ in Piers Beirne and Nigel South (eds.) Issues in Green
Criminology (Willan, 2007) 161 – 185.

Rida Waheed, Sahar Sarwar and Chen Wei, ‘The Survey of Economic Growth, Energy
Consumption and Carbon Emission’ Energy Reports 5 (2019) 1103-1115.

Sanne Weber, ‘From Victims and Mothers to Citizens’ IJTJ 12(1) (2018) 88-107.

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

Caitlin E. Werrell and Francesco Femia, ‘Climate Change Raises Conflict Concerns’ The
UNESCO Courier, https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-2/climate-change-raises-conflict-
concerns.

Rob White, ‘Green Victimology and Non-Human Victims’ International Review of

Victimology 24(2) (2018) 239-255.

Christopher Williams, ‘Environmental Victims’ Social Justice 23(4) (1996) 1-6.

Tanya Wyatt, Diane Solomon Westerhuise and Reece Walters, ‘Introduction’ in Reece Walters
et al., Emerging Issues in Green Criminology (Palgrave MacMillan, 2013) 1-16.

Hakeem Yusuf, ‘Colonialism and the Dilemmas of Transitional Justice in Nigeria’ IJTJ 12(2)
(2018) 257-276.

Lisa Zilney, Danielle McGurrin and Sammy Zahran, ‘Environmental Justice and the Role of
Criminology’ Criminal Justice Review 31(1) (2006) 47-62.

Marcus Zunino, Justice Framed: A Genealogy of Transitional Justice (CUP, 2020).

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180

Forthcoming in: Matthew Evans (ed), Beyond Transitional Justice? (Routledge, 2021)

i
By environmental harm we refer to the pollution of air, land and water, the killing of wildlife, and the destruction
of ecosystems (such as forests or lakes).
ii
Detailed exploration of this relationship is beyond the scope of this chapter; however the work of Foucault is
particularly influential here (see analysis in e.g. Garland, 1986; Valverde, 2017). His use of the term ‘power-
knowledge’ captures that ‘the relationship between knowledge and power is…an intimate and internal relationship
in which each implies and increases the other’ (Garland, 1986: 853).

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3769180