{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014218009478672985, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.285714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Nonviolence and reconciliation among the violence in Libya

ABSTRACT State incapacity to ensure security for reconciliation after wars and to stand behind enforcement of reconciliation agreements is a problem. Lessons are drawn from Libya, a country teetering on the precipice of intractable violence. First, a logic of deterrence is that where deterrence is most needed, it is most dangerous. Second, a logic of restorative justice is that where it is hardest to do, it is most important to do. In places like Libya, traditional tribal justice informed by evidence-based restorative justice is imperative to smother sparks that might reignite civil war. It is also important in transitional zones beyond state authority for controlling transnational crime and terrorism. The importance of local restorative justice in peacebuilding is obscured by grand narratives of what wars are about. Beneath the Libyan grand narrative of a democratic revolution achieved by force of arms are muted subsidiary narratives of transition secured through reconciliations.