In February 2024, the High Court in Belfast declared in Dillon and others that fundamental aspects of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 are unlawful and should be disapplied.  Most notably, it ruled that provisions for immunity from prosecution for serious violations are incompatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.

In a two-part blog for the Oxford Human Rights Hub, Professors Bryson and Mallinder focus on an aspect of the ruling that has received much less attention, namely the extent to which this Act can deliver on its principle objective which is to ‘promote reconciliation’.  Although the High Court concluded, that ‘there is no evidence that the granting of immunity under the 2023 Act will in any way contribute to reconciliation in Northern Ireland’ and that ‘indeed, the evidence is to the contrary’ [187], it did not address the extent to which other aspects of the Act are likely to do so.

The first part of their blog interrogates legal and theoretical understandings of reconciliation.  It argues that case law from international criminal courts and international human rights bodies provide a coherent conceptualization of reconciliation that emphasizes the importance of offenders disclosing the truth about their actions and acknowledging their wrongdoing and the provision of reparations to individuals and communities to repair the harm and prevent repetition.

The second part of the blog applies these legal and theoretical standards to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.  It finds that the legal, political and institutional processes underpinning the Northern Ireland Legacy Act are not founded on a transparent and human rights-based understanding of reconciliation.  In particular, it notes that: the weakness of the truth recovery functions of the Independent Commission on Reconciliation and Information Recovery inhibits its ability to contribute to reconciliation; the Legacy Act is opposed by almost all key stakeholders, including victims; and the proposed memorialisation work is deliberately designed to privilege a particular narrative of the conflict.

Read first part of the blog here

Read the second part of the blog here

 

Professor Anna Bryson

Anna Bryson is a Professor in the School of Law and a Fellow: Legacy at the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice. She was appointed Director of Research for QUB Law in 2023.  Her most recent research has developed at the intersection of socio-legal studies, transitional justice and oral history.

 

Professor Louise Mallinder

Professor Mallinder is the Deputy Director and Theme Lead for Legacy at the Mitchell Institute. Louise is also Professor of Law at the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast.  Her research interests relate to the fields of international human rights law, international criminal law, and law and politics in political transitions.