I felt it may be useful to reproduce the short section on ‘Legitimacy of Context’ (which is critiqued in this review), in case readers are interested:

*Legitimacy of context*

The perceived legitimacy of the context in which a participant suffered loss often influenced that participant’s views. This factor applied most significantly to a participant’s views on justice and reparations. For instance, some participants who suffered loss during the JVP insurrection or during the post-war period unequivocally rejected the legitimacy of the overall context of their loss. They believed that the government’s crackdown on the JVP in the late 1980s or on dissenters in the post-war period was unjustified. Subject to the application of other factors, a positive correlation appears to exist between the denial of contextual legitimacy and the general demand for perpetrators to be held accountable. The identical attitude was evident among some participants who rejected the legitimacy of the government’s military operations between 2006 and 2009. These same participants tended to demand that perpetrators who caused the death of their relatives during the military operations be held accountable. Interestingly, some participants whose children were killed in action believed that the war was a politically manufactured event. Their demand for reparations was also distinct in that they believed that those who waged the war should be held to account for the destruction caused to life and property.

By contrast, the few participants who accepted the legitimacy of the overall context of their loss appeared to be less interested in the identification and prosecution of perpetrators. This perceived legitimacy also shaped the manner in which these participants coped with their loss. For instance, certain participants who believed that military operations against the LTTE were justified, treated the loss of their relatives—killed in action—as an unfortunate, but somehow inevitable consequence of war. These participants rationalised the deaths of their relatives as acts of bravery, and appeared to be disinterested in the prosecution of those responsible for the death of their relatives.

The views of participants point to a correlation between the perceived legitimacy of the context of loss and the expectations of justice. Given the small size of the sample used in the present study, this hypothesis ought to be explored further. Bearing this limitation in mind, the responses of the participants appear to suggest that those who considered the context of their loss as ‘unjustified’ were more likely to demand some form of justice. The possible correlation, though unsurprising, is important to acknowledge, as the converse helps us understand the reductive narrative discussed in the preceding section.

This hypothesis contains two corresponding limbs. First, those who deny the contextual legitimacy of their loss tend to demand accountability. Second, those who accept the context as legitimate tend not to show a strong interest in accountability. Thus there appears to be a tendency for individuals who accept the legitimacy of a particular context to be less interested in indentifying and prosecuting perpetrators. If the tendency is widespread, it is possible to mistake it for evidence of a ‘Sri Lankan approach’ to justice i.e. an approach that features leniency of punishment. Therefore, a high concentration of Sri Lankans accepting the legitimacy of military operations against the LTTE may ostensibly translate into a narrative on how Sri Lankans wish to deal with wartime atrocities. Their views on contextual legitimacy could shape their expectations of justice in terms of their own loss—particularly with respect to relatives killed or missing in action. A lack of interest in the accountability of those responsible for such loss could be mistaken for a dominant trend in ‘tolerance’, ‘forgiveness’ and ‘leniency’.

At the root of this hypothesis is the idea that the demand for justice stems from an acknowledgement or recognition of injustice. Participants who preferred to see those who caused the deaths of their relatives rehabilitated rather than prosecuted also accepted the overall legitimacy of the war; they saw their own loss as part of that legitimate context. They perceived no ‘injustice’ that could prompt a corresponding demand for ‘justice’. This rationalisation of personal loss should not be interpreted as a dominant attitude to justice. Instead, questions of justice must be asked of victims and survivors who genuinely believe that the circumstances of their loss were ‘unjust’. Participants who recognised the unjust nature of the circumstances surrounding their loss were the only ones who were actually grappling with questions of justice. The so-called ‘Sri Lankan approach’ to justice must therefore be located among these participants; and as explained in the preceding section, a singular attitude to justice simply does not exist among such victims and survivors.