INTRODUCTION

International law's approach to conflict-related harms has evolved over the years. Through various measures, such as the adoption of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law [hereinafter 2005 UN Basic Principles], the international community of states has formally recognised the importance of adopting a victim-centred approach that addresses questions of justice from the perspective of victims. This article critically evaluates international law's embrace of a more victim-centred approach by studying how justice has been conceptualised at two levels, namely, its formal articulation at international law and its actual practice by victim movements. It proceeds by examining three questions: (1) the different approaches to justice for conflict-related harm developed by international law; (2) the mobilisation of three post-World War II movements around the idea of justice; (3) the conception or idea of justice put forward by these movements.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to position this article, describe its subject matter, and outline its scope. The topic of reparations is potentiallybroad in nature and has been studied from various perspectives. By focusing on the perspective of victims, this article follows in the footsteps of recent scholarship emphasising the need to take a bottom-up approach when responding to mass injustice in a post-conflict or transitional context. By focusing on victim movements and applying social movement theory, this article limits itself to justice demands generated by movements composed of victims and their supporters. It does so for two purposes. First, without denying the legitimacy of other conflict-related justice claims, claims advanced by broad-based movements demand a certain legitimacy and attention from policy-makers in democratic societies. Second, as sites of knowledge generated through practice, movements are able to provide us with new insight when approaching contentious issues.

The post-World War II movements considered involve claims made for harms that are particularly serious in nature. These harms amount to violations of the victims’ fundamental rights, and were perpetrated in a systematic and organised manner. Within the human rights framework, these harms fall under the category of ‘gross and systematic violations of human rights’.