Abstract
The peace agreement for Aceh included standard post-conflict measures, such as a human rights court and a truth and reconciliation commission. Why were they neglected? If they were going to be neglected, why did the negotiators initially agree on them instead of choosing amnesty or nothing? I argue that their nature as preemptive policies is key to understanding why they were introduced but not implemented. Preemptive transitional justice policies are adopted when reluctant policymakers attempt to trump tougher options with more acceptable alternatives, such as the following preemption in reformasi Indonesia.
