Judicial review and transitional justice: Reflective judgement in three contexts

This article seeks to examine the ways in which courts of constitutional review have tried to deal with public sentiments within societies emerging from large–scale oppression and conflict. A comparative analysis of judicial review decisions from post–communist Hungary, post–Apartheid South Africa and post–dictatorial Argentina is meant to show–case how judges have, more or less successfully, recognised and pedagogically engaged social negative feelings of resentment and indignation towards former victimisers and beneficiaries of violence. Thus, the article hopes to pave the way for more in–depth research on one of the most neglected dimensions of post–conflict societies: public affect.