Nandor Knust joins JiC for this article, a part of JiC’s ongoing symposium on Alette Smeulers’ new book “Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities Terribly and Terrifyingly Normal?”. Nandor is an Associate Professor of Law at the Arctic University of Norway, in Tromsø. He has a rich history of practical experience during his time at international, regional, and non-governmental organisations within the field of human rights, atrocity crimes and transitional justice. All other contributions to the symposium can be found here.

This review examines the implications of Alette Smeulers’ comprehensive typology of perpetrators of mass atrocities, as presented in her impressive work, Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities: Terribly and Terrifyingly Normal? for possible future designs and applications of transitional justice (TJ). By analysing the fourteen distinct perpetrator categories identified by Smeulers, my following little ‘thought experiment’ tries to explore how her typology can inform and enhance transitional justice mechanisms, particularly in the realms of justice, truth-seeking, and reconciliation. 

Smeulers’ work is rooted in the notion that mass atrocity crimes are inherently collective in nature, manifesting within organisational frameworks and frequently involving significant numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens. The central question driving her theoretical framework is how so many ordinary people can come to commit or enable extraordinary evil. In answering this question, Smeulers adopts an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on criminology and social psychology to complement her legal analysis. She surveys classic explanations, including obedience to authority, conformity to peer pressure, ideological indoctrination, hatred and dehumanisation of victims, greed or opportunism, fear and duress, etc. It is evident that all these factors can play a role, albeit in different ways and to a different extent, depending on the perpetrator. To summarise, there is no single cause-and-effect relationship leading to atrocities. Rather, personal dispositions (individual traits, beliefs, pathologies) interact with situational forces (group dynamics, coercive environments, war conditions) to produce varying outcomes. This theoretical stance explicitly rejects a one-size-fits-all portrayal of the atrocity perpetrator, emphasising nuance and diversity.

The foundation of Smeulers’ framework is a typology of fourteen perpetrator types. She developed this by studying individuals involved in mass violence from World War II to contemporary conflicts. By examining biographies, diaries, interviews, trial records and prior scholarship, she groups perpetrators according to common motivators and roles. 

It is noteworthy that Smeulers explicitly links her resulting perpetrator typology to legal concepts of guilt and responsibility. This is consistent with her previous works, in which she contends that typology can function as a theoretical framework to attribute individual criminal responsibility in a more fair and tailored manner. International criminal law (ICL) is traditionally based on the principle of individual responsibility, even in cases of collective crimes. Smeulers fully agrees that individuals must be held accountable, but her framework challenges legal practitioners to consider which individuals to hold accountable and how. By giving ‘all the cogs in the machine a human face’, her analysis reveals the differing degrees of free will, intent, and influence among perpetrators. This has direct implications for adjudicating mens rea and gradations of culpability. Smeulers’ work insists that post-conflict approaches should reflect such divergences in very precise detail. Even at the bottom of the hierarchy of perpetrators, there are crucial distinctions – for example, between the willing executioner driven by hate and the reluctant conscript. This complicates prosecutorial strategies and processes of sentencing. It suggests, for example, that justice may require greater leniency or alternative measures (such as truth commissions, customary procedures, or rehabilitation approaches) for those who killed under coercion or out of survival fear, compared to those who killed enthusiastically. Smeulers’ work therefore creates a concrete framework for analysing the collective nature of atrocity in individual pieces and stories that are important for justice, truth, reconciliation and, consequently, for all approaches of TJ.

Transitional justice is a term used to describe a range of mechanisms that are designed to address the legacies of mass atrocities and human rights violations in post-conflict societies. These mechanisms often include criminal prosecutions, truth commissions, reparations, and institutional reforms. A key challenge in designing and implementing TJ processes is to understand the complex motivations and behaviours of perpetrators, the context that finally triggered those atrocious activities, and the interrelation of different actors during that period of time. As previously stated, many TJ approaches tend to view perpetrators in a rather uniform manner and fail to consider the various factors that motivate individuals to commit atrocities. As a result, these approaches are unable to address these issues in a meaningful and lasting manner. 

An individually tailored reaction to such atrocity crimes is key to facilitating reconciliation in divided societies and re-establishing peaceful coexistence. One approach that is frequently discussed in TJ is the ‘toolbox approach’, which involves the combination of different mechanisms and levels. In this discussion and application, a division into different crimes, victims and perpetrators is essential. Special mechanisms are required to address the different challenges and needs that society must address in a post-conflict context. Therefore, the classification of perpetrators in the field of TJ has already been implemented in a variety of different approaches. For example, this was the case in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi. The categorisation of perpetrators was based on the different actus reus and acts of genocide. This helped the pluralistic system of transitional justice to rationalise TJ procedures and send the different kinds of perpetrator to the different levels and mechanisms (criminal trials, Gacaca, etc.).

Based on motivations, roles, and psychological profiles, Smeulers’ typology of perpetrators aims not only to show how different perpetrators can be but also how they interact and complement each other. The book demonstrates how group and organisational dynamics might function and how these perpetrators are all integral components of destructive and violent machines. This approach creates a nuanced framework for understanding the heterogeneity among perpetrators and the possible interactions. It can therefore be regarded as a valuable opportunity and necessary starting point to re-evaluate and discuss the future design and implementation of TJ mechanisms. Recognising heterogeneity among perpetrators is key to more effective TJ processes. Nevertheless, it should not override the main focus of justice, truth and reconciliation processes, that being the interests of victims and justice in general.

Justice mechanisms, such as traditional criminal prosecutions, typically prioritise high-ranking officials or those considered most responsible for atrocities. (International) Criminal Justice is always selective and in the case of mass violence this selectivity has a strong focus on the most severe crimes and the interest of justice and victims. However, Smeulers’ typology highlights the need for a more nuanced approach that considers the varying types of perpetrators. 

Truth commissions play a crucial role in uncovering the facts about past atrocities and providing a platform for victims and perpetrators to share their experiences. Smeulers’ typology triggers a discussion to enhance the effectiveness of truth-seeking efforts by special designed truth-telling initiatives. By tailoring truth-seeking approaches, commissions can gain deeper insights into the causes and dynamics of mass atrocities and address them accordingly.

Achieving reconciliation in post-conflict societies involves rebuilding trust among communities and fostering a sense of shared humanity. Smeulers’ work also creates a possible foundation for reconciliation on the micro and macro level and therefore highlights the importance of addressing the varied experiences and motivations of perpetrators in reconciliation processes. 

As highlighted already at different fora the book’s ambitious scope presents certain challenges. One potential weakness is the categorisation rigidity inherent in any typology. Human behaviour is fluid, and individual perpetrators may not fit neatly into a single box or may shift categories over time. Rigid categorization can even lead to unwanted and unjust results as seen for example in the case of the transitional justice process with Nazi Germany. Therefore, the typology, while nuanced, could be seen as too elaborate for courtroom use and raises a question of practicality: can judges and lawyers realistically employ this framework, or is it more of a purely academic contribution? However, this study should be seen as a necessary and essential contribution within the discussion for a possible more ‘tailored justice approaches’ within post-conflict situations and should be seen as an impulse for further necessary solid research in this field.

Another critique is that the focus on individual typologies might underplay structural factors in another way: while the book dissects individual psychology and group dynamics, it spends less time on the broader political and societal conditions that enable atrocities, such as how ideological state machinery or colonial legacies set the stage for these crimes – beyond the role of individual masterminds. But here again it needs to be highlighted, this book should be seen as a starting point for a much wider discussion and therefore is a wide source for academic connectivity for a further development of this field. 

Alette Smeulers’ typology of perpetrators offers a comprehensive framework for the categorization of the diverse motivations and behaviours of individuals involved in mass atrocities. By incorporating this typology into the design and implementation of transitional justice mechanisms, practitioners might reconsider existing TJ models and use those ideas to discuss and develop more nuanced and effective approaches to achieving justice, uncovering the truth, and fostering reconciliation. Besides the essential focus of transitional justice mechanisms on the interest of victims and the interest of justice in general, the recognition of the heterogeneity among perpetrators can be seen as essential for addressing the complex legacies of mass violence and promoting sustainable peace in post-conflict societies. This innovative work by Smeulers provides the foundation and necessary spark for an urgent discussion and further necessary research into a new era of ‘tailor-made’ transitional justice.