The Impact of International Tribunals and Domestic Trials on Peace and Human Rights After Civil War

Abstract

We analyze whether international criminal tribunals and domestic human rights trials can play an important role in peacebuilding in postconflict societies. Advocates and scholars argue that by providing justice and truth, helping to remove war criminals and peace spoilers from their societies, and by contributing to deterrence, these institutions contribute to improvements in human rights and the maintenance of peace. Other scholars assert that few such beneficial effects have occurred. We test the impact of international tribunals and domestic trials on the recurrence of civil war and human rights improvements in states that have emerged from civil war since 1982. The evidence regarding their beneficial impacts is fairly clear, however, and suggests that while domestic human rights trials and international tribunals do not exercise any negative effects, they do not appear to contribute to reducing the recurrence of civil war or improvements in human rights practices.

The Justice Cascade: The Origins and Effectiveness of Prosecutions of Human Rights Violations

“…There has been a lively debate in the political science and international law literature about the desirability and impact of human rights trials. Recent empirical studies have not been able to resolve fully a decade-long debate over the effect of prosecutions of human rights violations for improving human rights practices (Snyder & Vinjamuri 2004a,b;Sikkink & Walling 2007;Akhavan 2009;Van Der Merwe et al 2009;Meernik et al 2010;Nettelfield 2010;Olsen et al 2010). Many scholars and practitioners believe that such trials are both legally and ethically desirable and practically useful in deterring future human rights violations (Roht-Arriaza 1995, Mendez 1997, whereas others believe that such prosecutions do not deter future violations and that, in some circumstances, they exacerbate the situation by provoking still powerful former state officials.…”

Constructive Criticism: Shaming, Incentives, and Human Rights Reforms

“…The fact that other instruments that harness economic power to influence HR policies such as trade conditionality, and aid conditionality have positive effects on HR (Finkel, Pérez‐Liñán, and Seligson ), suggest that the combination of shaming and incentives would have a stronger impact than shaming without leverage. Much of the literature argues that the mechanism linking the publication of HR policies with policy change is the mobilization of powerful actors who inflict material and reputational costs for noncompliance (Cardenas ; Hill ; Lupu ; Magesan ; Meernik, Nichols, and King ; Regilme ; Trachtman ; von Stein ). This argument has not been exposed to direct empirical and cross‐regional scrutiny.…”

What We Know About Transitional Justice: Survey and Experimental Evidence

“…Although many scholars have acknowledged the need to supplement legal studies on international criminal tribunals (ICTs) with social research (Fletcher & Weinstein, ; Stover & Weinstein, ; Vinjamuri & Sneider, ), different answers to some fundamental questions about the social effects of ICTs persist. According to David (), some see ICTs as a path to peace (Akhavan, ; Statute of the ICTY, ), whereas others do not observe any impact of domestic and international trials on peace and human rights (Meernik, ; Meernik, Nichols, & King, ). Some claim criminal trials have a deterrent effect (Akhavan, ; Sikkink, ), while others see no evidence of deterrence (see Cronin‐Furman, ; Ku & Nzelibe, ; Meernik, ).…”