: Reparations are usedemployed to address the to reconcile violence of the past toas means to ensure a peaceful future. Transitional justice, asHowever, as part of transitional justice, and with an emphasis on state-building towardsand with a liberal market democracy as itsan endpoint, reparations can conflict with other post-conflict goals of reconciliation and preventingthe prevention of future violations. This article reviews the claimed goals and expectations for reparations as an element of transitional justice, exploring especially the relationship of reparations with reconciliation and guarantees of non-recurrence. This article argues that reparations necessarily for addressing structural injustice, but not in a coherent or holistic fashion. Reparations can also risk consolidating state power. Drawing from fieldwork in multiple jurisdictions, we explore the complexity of reparations in practice. We assess whether reparations operate primarily as a state-building project or providing a palliative solution to the violence of the past that aims to settle and foreclose political contestation,, rather than addressing root causes of violence and settling the past that inhibits broader agonistic political contestation.Reparations are used to reconcile violence of the past to ensure a peaceful future. Transitional justice as part of state-building towards a liberal market democracy as its endpoint can conflict with other goals of reconciliation and preventing future violations. This article argues that reparations necessarily form part of addressing structural injustice, but not necessarily in a coherent or holistic fashion. Yet reparations can also risk consolidating state power. Drawing from fieldwork, this articles explores the complexity of reparations whether as state-building or palliative rather than addressing root causes of violence, and the settlement of the past in a manner that inhibits broader agonistic political contestation.