UB Law School to Examine Lessons from Truth and Reconciliation Commissions

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- The University at Buffalo Law School will host an international conference "Implementing Truth and Reconciliation: Comparative Lessons for Korea" on Monday, Oct. 24, bringing together experts from around the globe to reflect on national experiences of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.

Sponsored by the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy, the Asian Studies Program, and the Buffalo Human Rights Center, the conference will offer lessons on the recently concluded TRC process in South Korea.

Two morning panels will be open to the public: "The Korean TRC Experience: Critical Reflections Toward the Future" from 9:15-11:00 a.m.; and "Implementing Truth and Reconciliation: Lessons from Peru, Cambodia and South Africa" from 11:15 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Both panel discussions will be held in the Cellino and Barnes Conference Center, 509 O'Brian Hall, North Campus. Those wishing to attend the public panels should register at BaldyRSVP@buffalo.edu. For more details and the full lineup of presenters, visit the conference website: http://law.buffalo.edu/baldycenter/KoreanTruthReconciliation/.

The TRC Korea officially closed its doors at the end of 2010 after more than four years of work, during which time it investigated approximately 10,000 reported cases of human rights violations taking place between 1910 and 1993. Much work lies ahead, however, in publicizing and implementing the commission's findings and recommendations.

There is much to learn from the comparative experiences of the more than 30 other TRCs that have undertaken work in countries around the world. Such commissions have taken a diversity of forms, responded to distinct kinds of violence over distinct periods of time, and -- given the diversity of approaches taken -- had a wide variety of success rates with the implementation of their final recommendations.

Experts in transitional justice and TRC processes in Peru, South Africa and Cambodia will seek to document the reasons behind these relative success rates. They will explain the distinct approaches taken to implementation, the web of actors involved in the implementation process, and the lessons learned about what worked, what did not work and how, looking back, the implementation process might have been restructured to achieve better results.