On May 18, 2009 the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) declared victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and ended a 30-year conflict. The way the final phase of the war was fought, how it ended and what happened with the Tamil civilians and LTTE combatants at the end of the hostilities became a controversial issue.
The Security Council (SC) considered the war and the internments of the internally displaced people (IDP) as an internal matter.
The GoSL always called the final stage of the war a “humanitarian rescue operation” and presented its actions as part of a large hostage rescue operation (This was based on the well-known fact that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) were holding back civilians in its territory). At the end of the hostilities, civilians were put in overcrowded, closed camps for “InternalIy Displaced Persons” (IDPs) with limited humanitarian assistance where they were exposed to harassment by security forces who were looking for LTTE fighters likely to be hiding among them.
After more than a year, on June 22, 2010 the SG announced the appointment of an ‘Experts’ Panel’ to inform him of the progress of the commitment made by the GoSL after his visit in 2009. The UN Panel of Experts completed its report at the end of March 2011 and made it public on April 25. The Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission's (LLRC) accountability initiative had by then conducted eight months of public hearings and the GoSL was very concerned that the earlier publication of the UN Panel report would compromise its domestic driven initiative.
Past events are the underlying cause for a need for a reconciliation process. They are well documented and the author has referred to them when strengthening or clarifying an argument. The length of this document does not however, allow for a detailed account of the conflict history in Sri Lanka.
This essay will firstly analyze the process that led to the establishment of the LLRC and its working modalities including its mandate. Secondly, it will critically assess the final report and a selection of LLRC major findings of the LLRC. It will then discuss some key elements, based on the framework of restorative justice, which could be deemed essential for an improved reconciliation process in Sri Lanka. As a conclusion, it will propose required key short- and long-term policy changes in order to facilitate the reconciliation process.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Establishment of the LLRC
3. LLRC working modalities
4. The LLRC final report and its findings
4.1 Chapter 1 – Introduction and Methodology
4.2 Chapter 2 – Ceasefire Agreement (CFA)
4.3 Chapter 3 – Overview of Security Forces Operations
4.4 Chapter 4 – Humanitarian Law Issues
4.5 Chapter 5 – Human Rights
4.6 Chapter 6 – Land Issues: Return and Resettlement
4.7 Chapter 7 – Restitution / Compensatory Relief
4.8 Chapter 8 – Reconciliation
4.9 Chapter 9 – Principal Observations and Recommendations
5. Additional elements which could deem essential for an improved reconciliation process in Sri Lanka
6. Conclusion and policy recommendation
Research Objectives and Core Topics
This essay aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in Sri Lanka, assessing its mandate, working methods, and final findings, while proposing a restorative justice framework to facilitate a more genuine long-term reconciliation process.
- Critical assessment of the LLRC's mandate and structural limitations.
- Analysis of the commission's handling of human rights and humanitarian law violations.
- Examination of the role of restorative justice in post-conflict societal healing.
- Formulation of short-term and long-term policy recommendations for sustainable peace.
Excerpt from the Book
Establishment of the LLRC
As a reaction to the increasing international pressure to address the alleged abuses in the final stages of the war, the Sri Lankan President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, announced the establishment of the LLRC on May 6, 2010. The mandate of the commission was to inquire “the facts and circumstances which led to the failure of the ceasefire agreement operationalized on 21st February 2002 and the sequence of events that followed thereafter up to the 19th of May 2009”1.
The establishment of the commission as a first national step to accountability was widely criticized by various Human Rights bodies. Organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (AI) generally doubted that another national attempt for accountability would produce any tangible results similar to the past governmental initiatives. This was however not due to a lack of legal framework but to the unwillingness of the authorities to investigate abuses of their security forces and to ensure a proper follow up (ICG, 2010, p. 30). The main shortcomings of the LLRC mandate brought forward were the following:
Non conformism with international standards, in particular with various provisions in the Updated Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity (AI, 2011, p. 11-12).
The mandate and how it relates to accountability is not clearly formulated. It does not include a mandate for investigation of HR and IHL violations and it does not contain any provisions to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice (Human Rights Watch, 2012, p. 1).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Provides an overview of the end of the 30-year conflict in Sri Lanka and the subsequent international pressure to address accountability and human rights abuses.
2. Establishment of the LLRC: Details the formation of the commission by President Rajapaksa in response to external criticism and outlines its initial mandate.
3. LLRC working modalities: Examines the structural deficits and procedural flaws of the commission, noting its lack of a victim-centered approach during public hearings.
4. The LLRC final report and its findings: Provides a chapter-by-chapter critique of the final report, highlighting biases and omissions regarding investigations into war crimes.
5. Additional elements which could deem essential for an improved reconciliation process in Sri Lanka: Discusses the framework of restorative justice as a necessary alternative to purely retributive approaches for long-term peace.
6. Conclusion and policy recommendation: Offers a synthesis of findings and proposes actionable short-term and long-term policies for a comprehensive reconciliation process.
Keywords
Sri Lanka, Reconciliation, LLRC, Accountability, Restorative Justice, Human Rights, IHL, Post-conflict, War, Diplomacy, Peacebuilding, Rule of Law, Policy, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Transitional Justice
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this academic work?
The paper evaluates the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in Sri Lanka to determine its efficacy in addressing post-war accountability and reconciliation.
What are the primary thematic areas covered in the analysis?
Key themes include the mandate and working procedures of the LLRC, the assessment of human rights and humanitarian law violations, and the application of restorative justice theories.
What is the central research goal?
The goal is to critically analyze the LLRC's findings and suggest an improved, more inclusive policy framework for national reconciliation in Sri Lanka.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs a qualitative policy analysis approach, reviewing official commission documents, international reports, and academic frameworks on justice.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body examines the establishment of the LLRC, its procedural shortcomings, a detailed chapter-by-chapter assessment of its report, and a discussion on restorative justice.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The work is defined by terms such as accountability, restorative justice, transitional justice, human rights, and the specific context of the Sri Lankan post-war era.
Why was the LLRC mandate considered controversial?
The mandate was criticized for lacking an explicit focus on investigating specific war crimes and for failing to meet international standards for witness protection and independence.
What does the author suggest as a path forward for reconciliation?
The author proposes a shift from a government-imposed, accountability-only focus toward a broader, restorative, and people-centered approach involving all civil society actors.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Marcel Reymond (Autor:in), 2012, Reconciliation in Sri Lanka, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/203099
