The Politics of Legal Time: Statutes of Limitations in Transitional Justice

This article critically explores the role of statutes of limitations in transitional justice contexts, examining how legal time is politicized and negotiated in efforts to address past human rights violations. Using a scientific narrative review design with a descriptive analysis approach, this study synthesizes academic literature, legal texts, and institutional reports published between ۲۰۱۸ and ۲۰۲۴. It draws from global case studies including Argentina, Rwanda, South Africa, Germany, Chile, and the former Yugoslavia, alongside analyses of international legal instruments and court rulings. The review reveals that conventional statutes of limitations often obstruct justice in transitional settings by imposing rigid timeframes on complex and delayed legal claims. In many cases, domestic and international actors have responded by suspending, annulling, or reinterpreting limitation statutes to align with the principle of imprescriptibility for serious crimes. The study highlights how political actors manipulate legal time to protect themselves or shape narratives of accountability, and emphasizes the normative tensions between legal certainty, reconciliation, and the enduring demands of justice. It also underscores the significance of victims’ rights and intergenerational harm in rethinking legal time. The findings underscore the need for legal systems to adopt flexible, context-sensitive approaches to legal time in transitional justice. Statutes of limitations should be reformed or suspended when they hinder justice for grave violations, and legal frameworks must center the lived experiences of victims. A more ethical and politically conscious understanding of legal temporality is essential for achieving genuine accountability and reconciliation.This article critically explores the role of statutes of limitations in transitional justice contexts, examining how legal time is politicized and negotiated in efforts to address past human rights violations. Using a scientific narrative review design with a descriptive analysis approach, this study synthesizes academic literature, legal texts, and institutional reports published between ۲۰۱۸ and ۲۰۲۴. It draws from global case studies including Argentina, Rwanda, South Africa, Germany, Chile, and the former Yugoslavia, alongside analyses of international legal instruments and court rulings. The review reveals that conventional statutes of limitations often obstruct justice in transitional settings by imposing rigid timeframes on complex and delayed legal claims. In many cases, domestic and international actors have responded by suspending, annulling, or reinterpreting limitation statutes to align with the principle of imprescriptibility for serious crimes. The study highlights how political actors manipulate legal time to protect themselves or shape narratives of accountability, and emphasizes the normative tensions between legal certainty, reconciliation, and the enduring demands of justice. It also underscores the significance of victims’ rights and intergenerational harm in rethinking legal time. The findings underscore the need for legal systems to adopt flexible, context-sensitive approaches to legal time in transitional justice. Statutes of limitations should be reformed or suspended when they hinder justice for grave violations, and legal frameworks must center the lived experiences of victims. A more ethical and politically conscious understanding of legal temporality is essential for achieving genuine accountability and reconciliation.

کلیدواژه ها:

transitional justice ، legal time ، statutes of limitations ، political justice ، imprescriptibility ، post-conflict law ، victims' rights ، reconciliation ، accountability ، legal temporality