The impact of criminal prosecutions during intrastate conflict

Abstract

The International Criminal Court’s interventions have prompted debate about the wisdom of criminally prosecuting combatants while attempting to build peace in conflict-ridden societies. Previous research fails to distinguish between different types of trials. Using a large-N dataset of three types of criminal trials undertaken during internal conflict – domestic security trials of rebels, domestic human rights trials of state agents, and international war crimes trials of both – this article tests a theory of the compellent effect of criminal prosecution on conflict termination. We find that, even when accounting for endogeneity, rebel trials are associated with a higher probability of conflict termination, while trials of state agents are weakly associated with conflict persistence. We argue that the former compel the opposition to discontinue fighting, while the latter signal to rebels a lack of government resolve. We also find that the effect of international trials, which at times appear weakly associated with conflict termination, is endogenous to international intervention more generally.

Accountability by Numbers: A New Global Transitional Justice Dataset (1946–2016)

“…1See, for instance, Mallinder 2008, Olsen, Payne, and Reiter 2010b, and most notably Sikkink and Walling 2007, Dancy and Wiebelhaus-Brahm 2017, and the ongoing efforts of the Transitional Justice Research Collaborative (TJRC), Dancy and Montal 2017, and Dancy and Michel 2016.…”

Judicial Reform – A Neglected Dimension of SSR in El Salvador

“…8. Quantitative research analysed the role of amnesties for war termination and war recurrence (Dancy 2017;Dancy and Wiebelhaus-Brahm 2017;Melander 2009) with a focus on the question if and under what conditions armed actors are willing to disarm. Results are rather inconclusive.…”

Evaluating the Success of Transitional Justice in Sierra Leone and Beyond

“…Dancy and Wiebelhaus-Brahm similarly find that TRCs are associated with an increased risk of the resumption of conflict. 21 Thoms, Ron and Paris find that the evidence for transitional justice producing either positive or negative outcomes is weak, noting that '[g]iven the intensity of the debate over TJ and its obvious policy significance, this conclusion may come as a surprise. It is in fact striking that and in the end the Court prosecuted both those who were judged by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) to bear a high level of responsibility and also against whom sufficient evidence could be found.…”