Post-Conflict Ethics in Barmm; A Rawlsian Analysis on Transitional Justice and Reconciliation

Abstract

John Rawls’ model of justice as fairness serves as the philosophical lens through which this paper studies transitional justice and reconciliation in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM). The mechanisms of transitional justice in post-conflict societies have the aim of compensating for the historical injustices, rebuilding legitimate institutions and restoring trust between the communities affected by violence and structural inequality. In the Bangsamoro situation, perhaps the most damaging complaint has been the land dispossession, which has marginalized, caused conflict and entrenched inequalities.
Using a qualitative philosophical methodology grounded in textual and conceptual analysis, the study evaluates whether BARMM’s transitional justice mechanisms embody Rawlsian principles of equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle. The research examines legal documents, peace agreements, transitional justice reports, and scholarly literature, while engaging philosophical critiques of Rawls by thinkers such as Iris Marion Young, Amartya Sen, Charles Mills, Susan Moller Okin, and Michael Sandel.
The results suggested that the TJ mechanisms of the BARMM had elements reflective of Rawlsian principles, in that they were aimed at the reform of institutions, reparations, truth-seeking and reconciliation to restore justice and legitimacy. Nevertheless, the study shows that Rawls’s framework is not sufficient to tackle completely structural land injustice caused by historical dispossession. Land injustice in BARMM violate Rawls’s principle of fair equality of opportunity which according to Young can be as a structural injustice that disables the capabilities, dignity, and active political participation of marginalized groups.
To address these limitations, the study proposes a Rawlsian-Complementary Framework for Post-Conflict Ethics, integrating Rawlsian institutional fairness with rectificatory justice, structural justice, and restorative justice. This framework emphasizes the need to correct historical injustices, transform institutional structures that perpetuate inequality, and promote moral repair and reconciliation in post-conflict societies.
The study contributes to political philosophy by demonstrating how Rawls’s theory of justice can inform transitional justice while also highlighting the need to expand normative frameworks to address non-ideal conditions shaped by historical injustice and structural inequality. In the context of BARMM, justice requires not only fair institutional arrangements but also the rectification of historical harm and the restoration of dignity and social cooperation among affected communities.