South Africa in the 1990s, ‘reconciliation’ seemed to be of crucial importance to a just transition but the postreconciliation circumstances have defaulted to protect the interest of the previously advantaged groups. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) offered amnesty from prosecution to those guilty of politically motivated human rights abuses in return for their full and truthful testimony. Theorists and political analysts debate the extent to which the TRC contributed to reconciliation in South Africa (Tutu 1999, Rotberg and Thompson 2000, Gibson 2004, Hamber 2009, Allais 2012). to each of these contexts. Particular conceptions of reconciliation vary across a number of dimensions. The kind of relationships in a specific context affects the type of improvement in relations that might be necessary in order to qualify as reconciliation. Reconciliation is widely taken to be a scalar concept. For Zimbabwe the scales are both temporal and spatial. Debates already exist as to the legacies that should be considered under the mandate of a peace and reconciliation architecture and the span of its hindsight. The spectrum of intensity of past conflict comes with varying degrees of inertia and resistance, with state level issues increasingly being impenetrable and rigid. Theorists often disagree about the point along this spectrum that is morally or politically most significant. Reconciliation processes are often controversial; those praised by some commentators as appropriate and constructive responses to past conflict are dismissed by others as undermining the moral or political conditions for just and peaceful relations. Further, theorists argue whether emphasis should be given to reconciliation or justice. While some see these values as compatible and mutually supporting, others choose between reconciliation and justice. For purposes of political and administrative feasibility some context analysis is therefore required. The value of reconciliation has also appealed to those in criminal law, who are interested in investigating alternative sentencing procedures and sanctions. However, restorative justice advocates see crime as a problem in the relationship among the offender, the victim, and the local community, and look to measures such as restitution payments and face-to-face dialogue in order to restore that relationship (Braithwaite 2000, van Ness & Strong 2002). Whether civil law, too, is amenable to interpretations that emphasize broken and repaired relationships is an open question (Radzik 2014). Reconciliation has emerged as a topic among moral theorists who discuss the ethical issues within everyday forms of wrongdoing, such as transgressions within friendships or family relationships (Walker 2006, Griswold 2007, Radzik 2009). It is at this level that forgiveness is imperative. Theorists ask whether one may reconcile with a wrongdoer without also forgiving him, or forgive a person without reconciling. In the literature on reconciliation in political and legal contexts, there are strong objections to forgiving the wrongdoers (who may, after all, remain unrepentant for committing atrocities) or to placing other people under pressure to forgive them. For some, a conception of reconciliation that does not require forgiveness offers a positive way forward in these difficult cases (Eisikovits 2009, Verdeja 2009, Murphy 2010). There is a long history of reconciliation efforts in the world to provide social learning for peace and reconciliation in Zimbabwe. Avruch and Vejamano (2002) provide a comprehensive historical analysis of reconciliation efforts globally from Yugoslavia, El Salvador, Apartheid in South Africa, Guatemala and Sierra Leone. By 1973 more than 20 “truth commissions” had been established with 15 created between 1974 and 1994. Some were created by international organizations like the United Nations (UN), a few by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the majority by the national governments of the countries in question (Avruch and Vejamano, 2002 p. 43). Discussions on the value of reconciliation, especially in political contexts, often have a skeptical orientation. Well-placed perpetrators pay lip-service to the value of reconciliation while aggression continues. Such experiences reinforce skepticism about the value of reconciliation especially where the movers are themselves beneficiaries of past atrocities. Reconciliation is claimed to put unjustifiable demands on victims of wrongdoing and to sacrifice justice for ‘peace’ (negative peace) (Rotberg and Thompson 2000). Other critics charge that the language of reconciliation lends itself to misuse because it has no clear normative standards and almost anyone can claim to be pursuing reconciliation (Schaap 2008). On the other hand defenders of reconciliation believe that it is amenable to further articulation. Reconciliation commissions have been sponsored by either the UN, NGOs or national governments. The UN sponsored, financed, and staffed the truth commissions in El Salvador (1992-1993). Commissions sponsored by NGOs include Paraguay (1976). The better-known South African Commission of Truth and Reconciliation was established by South Africa’s post-Apartheid parliament in 1995. Other government sponsored commissions include Argentina (1983-1984, resulting in the powerful report Nunca Mas, “Never Again,”; Bolivia (1982-1984; disbanded without issuing a final report); Uruguay (1985); Zimbabwe (1985, report never publicly released); Chile (1990-1991); Chad (1991-1992); Germany (1992-1994); Guatemala (1997-1999); Haiti (1995-1996); Nigeria (1999); Philippines (1986, report never completed); Sierra Leone (called for in 1999); Uganda (1974 and 1986-1995); Brazil (1986); East Timor (1999-2000); Ethiopia (1993-2000); and Honduras (1993). Avruch This review treats the significance of reconciliation across moral (viz. interpersonal and private), legal and political contexts. Many of the issues and debates that arise in the literature on reconciliation are relevant 5