ABSTRACT
Argentina provides another rich case, illustrating the role of external factors in helping to engender transition, as well as the complex set of trade-offs states must face. The central catalyst for change in Argentina is commonly agreed to have been the debacle in the Falklands/Malvinas, which weakened and embarrassed the military and encouraged it to step down. Domestic opposition was strong, but had previously posed no particular threat to the regime; the military loss seems to have been most important. Despite its weakened status, however, the military did not surrender all control over the political situation. At the same time, in contrast to other transitional experiences, external actors did not play a particularly significant role when the transition was underway. Although important and even high-level prosecutions went forward, as did a thorough report by a commission of inquiry, rebellions by the military helped force a series of procedural limitations and amnesties that largely reversed the effects of prosecutions. Some important constitutional institutional reforms were made, though they too were limited. The result was a set of compromises that partially addressed the legacy of the past and partly reformed the security forces to prevent future abuses. As with the other cases here, the outcome on the accountability/ stability continuum was not an either/or trade-off: measures of both were sought and achieved.
