Dealing with a Repressive Past; The Unsettled Story of Transitional Justice in Chile and Argentina- Has the Scope of Truth and Justice Policies Widened in Any of the Cases?

Abstract: Transitional justice inevitably means striking a balance between justice and peace. The purpose of this paper is to examine and analyze how policies of truth and justice have fared over time and continue to hold momentum in the case of Chile and Argentina. I will carry out this aim through a comparative study guided essentially by two theoretical approaches of transitional justice- legalism and pragmatism. I argue that while the pragmatic position might be the only feasible option in a short term perspective it appear it does not remain a forceful option in the long-term. The continuing search for truth and justice, and recurrent challenges made over time to amnesties by political actors, civil society, as well as international human rights regimes and the sometimes ambiguous role played by the judiciary will be considered. Furthermore the balance of power between key actors, as well as preference of these actors and the civil-military question will be explored. Findings in both cases suggest that the scope of transitional justice policies has widened and that the balance between stability and justice can post-transition be struck in a more nuanced way.