Abstract

The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) were created at the end of the last century in order to redress the most serious violations of human rights. However, the two organisms are an example - and for most observers the best ones to date - of two radically different paradigms of justice: retributive justice on the one hand and restorative justice on the other. This article analyses the theoretical background, the challenging mandates, and the activities and achievements of these two exemplary experiences. It further submits an evaluation of their work, according to which the TRC was better able to fulfil its mandate than the ICC has been so far. The article concludes by arguing that transitional justice's chances of success depend on adopting methodological guidelines such as a context-oriented approach and the involvement of the affected communities.