Citation

Meierhenrich J. Law Soc. Inq. 2008; 33(1): 195-231.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, American Bar Foundation, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1747-4469.2008.00098.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In recent years scholars from neighboring disciplines have emphasized the importance of conceptual rigor in designing, administering, and interpreting research in the social sciences. Drawing on this new conceptualism, this article analyzes the much talked about notion of “reconciliation.” In an effort at structuring a useful debate on possible departures from historic injustice, the article formulates a systematized concept of reconciliation based on the multitude of meanings contained in theory and practice. It distinguishes varieties of reconciliation, organizing these varieties into types and subtypes. The article argues that while most varieties of reconciliation emanate from the same root concept, the various outer layers of meaning do not overlap. This hampers not only our understanding of reconciliation, but its promotion in the international system as well. In response to this methodological malaise, the article prescribes friendly amendments—conceptual modifications and refinements designed to increase measurement validation of reconciliation as a conceptual variable.