ABSTRACT
The diffusion of transitional justice reflected a shift in practical and conceptual approaches to peace and justice, in which these concepts were progressively framed as mutually supportive and interdependent. Indonesia managed to successfully jeopardize the prosecutorial and restorative justice agendas by avoiding its stated responsibility to cooperate with the Serious Crimes Process prosecutions and by producing competing institutions of justice. The second general but salient conclusion pertaining to the nature of transitional justice in peacebuilding, with regard to transitional justice promoters, is that transitional justice is also contingent upon these actors and malleable by their conduct. From a comparative perspective on the three cases, this entails, inter alia, that the levels of engagement of transitional justice promoters were pivotal for creating and invoking particular transitional justice mechanisms and for keeping transitional justice on the political agenda.
