{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01425438596491228, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.864661654135339, '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}}
Human rights organizations and transitional justice agenda-setting: Evidence from peace agreement provisions

How do human rights organizations (HROs) shape transitional justice policy in countries emerging from conflict? We investigate this question in the context of peace processes, a vital stage when many key post-conflict policies are determined. Using granular data on the content of peace agreements, we show that the robust presence of HROs significantly increases the likelihood of provisions promising criminal accountability for wartime abuses. Yet this association is conditional on prior ratification of international human rights instruments and the existence of impartial third parties in the peace process—background factors that lower barriers to effective HRO advocacy. These findings reveal a novel pathway through which HROs secure transitional justice on the national agenda after conflict.