Justice & Accountability Options
Justice and accountability are central to legitimacy, but they can also become hard blockers in negotiations.
Freeze–Vote–Rebuild treats accountability as a set of constrained options that must be made explicit and tied to verification gates, rather than implied as guaranteed outcomes. This chapter maps option types and design questions. It does not prescribe a single path.
Objectives
- Clarify what accountability mechanisms are possible under different constraints.
- Prevent “silent tradeoffs” by making choices explicit.
- Design accountability commitments that are compatible with sequencing and verification-first gates.
- Avoid undermining legitimacy by deferring accountability without safeguards.
Core Design Principles
1. Separate Accountability from Impunity
Even if timing is staged, the framework should avoid structures that effectively erase accountability.
2. Make Timing Explicit
Accountability can be:
- Immediate: (During Freeze/Vote).
- Staged: (After Vote certification).
- Conditional: (Triggered by verified compliance or verified violations).
3. Tie Commitments to Verifiable Actions
If accountability is part of the bargain, specify:
- what actions occur,
- who implements them,
- what evidence is required.
Option A: Domestic Accountability Pathways
- Domestic investigations and prosecutions.
- Special domestic courts or prosecutors.
- Truth and documentation programs that preserve evidence.
Key questions: Independence of institutions, witness protection, and legal authority.
Option B: International Accountability Pathways
- International investigations and legal processes.
- Cooperation mechanisms for evidence sharing.
- Protections for investigators and witnesses.
Key questions: Jurisdiction, cooperation feasibility, and risk of politicization claims.
Option C: Hybrid Mechanisms
- Mixed domestic/international panels or courts.
- Shared investigative bodies with independent oversight.
- Jointly governed evidence repositories with audit.
Key questions: Governance design, capture resistance, and enforceability.
Option D: Staged Accountability with “No Amnesia” Safeguards
- Preserve evidence and commit to future processes.
- Define explicit triggers and timelines for activation.
- Maintain independent documentation and public reporting.
Key questions: Credibility of future activation and safeguards against abandonment.
Accountability and Incentives (Interaction Risks)
Potential Risks:
- Accountability demands becoming an absolute block to the Freeze.
- Accountability deferral undermining legitimacy and victim trust.
- Perceived “trade” of justice for stability damaging long-term durability.
Mitigation Approach:
- Explicitly document which option is chosen and why.
- Define “non-negotiable” integrity safeguards (evidence preservation, protections).
- Tie any deferrals to gates with enforceable triggers.
Evidence Preservation as a Minimum Baseline
Regardless of the chosen option set, the framework should specify:
- An evidence preservation program.
- Secure storage and chain-of-custody rules.
- Independent oversight and audit access.
- Witness protection pathways (as feasible).
This is compatible with:
Linkages to Gates and Domestic Approvals
If accountability commitments require legal authority or funding:
(See: Verification-First Gates)
Drafting Note
When populating this chapter with full content, include:
- A decision matrix of option families vs. constraints (feasibility, legitimacy, speed, durability).
- Explicit “minimum baseline” commitments that apply regardless of option choice.
- A clear explanation of what this framework can and cannot guarantee.
