conflict as well as characteristics of the post-conflict society itself. We control for these factors in our analysis to determine whether different aspects of PCJ have an independent effect on postconflict peace or if peace as well as justice are products of the same underlying factors.<sup>9</sup> The most important factor to look for in the transformation from autocracy to democracy is, according to de Brito, Gonzalez-Enriquez & Aguilar, (2001: 3004-05), the balance of forces between the elite of the old regime and the groups favoring democratization. In transition by ‘collapse’ the opposition is not obliged to negotiate amnesty because the balance of power is far more favorable. Gloppen (2005: 23) presents a similar argument, when she suggests that prosecution is more likely to be deterred by the fear of increasing conflict in situations where the previous regime has retained significant support. Subsequently, we are more likely to see justice in situations where the previous regime has been severely defeated. Similarly, in the transition from war to peace, we should expect the balance of forces to be more decisive, making PCJ more likely, if the conflict is terminated by victory by the government or the opposition than if it is terminated by agreements, negotiations or cease-fire. Indeed, Binningsbø, Elster & Gates (2005) find post-conflict trials to be strongly associated with victory. Of the 98 trials registered in the dataset, 68 took place following victory to side A or B. Also in those cases where conflicts end with victory, we find that amnesty and exile are not offered as a policy options in the majority of cases. The strong correlation between type of termination and commitment to some type of transitional justice makes it necessary to control for termination type in the analysis. Fortunately, the type of conflict termination is already coded into the Binningsbø, Elster & Gates, (2005) dataset, making it easy to investigate if the various attempts at PCJ have an effect on peace duration when the conflicts’ outcome is controlled for.

The duration of the previous regime is another factor emphasized by scholars of transitional justice (Elster 2004, de Brito, Gonzalez-Enriquez & Aguilar 2001). According to Elster (2004: 120), there seems to be more transitional justice in situations where the previous

> 9 Another potential problem when investigating the possible effect of post-conflict justice on peace duration is that these processes can eventually be a consequence rather than a cause of peace consolidation. For example, reparation to victims can be carried out when states come to terms with their troublesome past. Trials and purges are also more easily carried out when the post-conflict regime is no longer contested. Assuming that it takes some time before postconflict reconciliation is obtained; the longer it takes before post-conflict justice is carried out, thus more likely it is that justice is a consequence rather than a cause of the reconciliation process. In order to deal with this problem of endogeneity, we have, therefore, recorded only those processes of post-conflict justice taking place within a 10-year period after conflict termination, assuming that these processes are more likely to be a cause rather than a consequence of peace and reconciliation.

9