Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:48:08.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining public opinion on international criminal justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2014

James Meernik
James Meernik*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Political Science, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA Director, Castleberry Peace Institute, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the fact that international courts have proven popular in the last 20 years, systematic and empirical inquiry to determine whether they are beginning to realize their objectives is a fairly recent phenomenon. Support among the publics in the affected countries is critical to their success for, as deGuzman writes, ‘… the globalization of communications increasingly means that an institution’s legitimacy depends on the opinions of ordinary citizens around the world’. I develop a theory of public opinion regarding international criminal justice and test it on support for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), among peoples of the former Yugoslavia. I contend that support for the ICTY is filtered through individuals’ perceptions of the past, present, and future. As one’s beliefs about whether conditions are good or improving grow more positive, such positive perceptions are generalized to extend to international institutions that play a major role in shaping those conditions. In addition, I argue that support for the ICTY is strongly influenced by an individual’s views of the legitimacy and morality of the law. Ethnicity is also important in differentiating levels of support across the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.

Keywords

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslaviapublic opinionjustice
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , November 2015 , pp. 567 - 591
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Appel, B.J. and Loyle, C.E. (2012), ‘The economic benefits of justice: post-conflict justice and foreign direct investment’, Journal of Peace Research 49(5): 685–699.Google Scholar
Arzt, D.E. (2006), ‘Views on the ground: the local perception of International Criminal Tribunals in the Former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone’, 603 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 603: 226–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biro, M., Adjukovic, D., Corkalo, D., Djipa, D., Milin, P. and Weinstein, H.M. (2004), ‘Attitudes toward justice and social reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia’, in E. Stover and H. Weinstein (eds), My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183–205.Google Scholar
Cassel, D. (2001), ‘Does international human rights law make a difference?’, Chicago Journal of International Law 2: 121–135.Google Scholar
Cibelli, K. and Guberek, T. (2000), Justice Unknown, Justice Unsatisfied?: Bosnian NGOs Speak About the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Tufts University: Education and Public Inquiry and International Citizenship at Tufts University (EPIIC). https://hrdag.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/justicereport.pdfGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. (2009), ‘The limits of retributive justice’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 7: 463–487.Google Scholar
Dancy, G., Kim, H. and Wiebelhaus-Brahm, E. (2010), ‘The turn to truth: trends in truth commission experimentation’, Journal of Human Rights 9(1): 45–64.Google Scholar
Darley, J., Fulero, S., Haney, C. and Tyler, T. (2002), ‘Psychological jurisprudence: taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century’, in J. Ogloff (ed.), Taking Psychology and Law into the Twenty-First Century, New York, NY: Kluwer Academic, pp. 37–61.Google Scholar
deGuzman, M. (2012), ‘Choosing to prosecute: expressive selection at the international criminal court’, Michigan Journal of International Law 33: 265–320.Google Scholar
Drumbl, M.A. (2007), Atrocity, Punishment and International Law, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duckworth, A., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D. and Kelly, D.R. (2007), ‘Perseverance and passion for long-term goals’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(6): 1087–1101.Google Scholar
Elcheroth, G. (2006), ‘Individual-level and community effects of war trauma on social representations related to humanitarian law’, European Journal of Social Psychology 36: 907–930.Google Scholar
Elcheroth, G. and Spini, D. (2009), ‘Public support for prosecution of human rights violations in the former Yugoslavia’, Peace and Conflict 15: 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, S. (2012), ‘A social psychology model of the perceived legitimacy of international criminal courts: implications for the success of transitional justice systems’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 45: 405–476.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. (2006), Truth Commissions and Procedural Fairness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, L. (1969), The Morality of Law, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Grodsky, B. (2007), ‘Producing truth: the politics of investigating past human rights violations in post-communist states’, World Affairs 169(3): 125–133.Google Scholar
Hagan, J. and Ivkovic, S.K. (2006), ‘War crimes, democracy, and the rule of law in Belgrade, the former Yugoslavia, and beyond’, The Annuals of the American Academy 605: 130–151.Google Scholar
Hatay, J. (2005), ‘Peacebuilding and reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Macedonia 1995-2004’. Retrieved 8 December 2009 from http://www.pcr.uu.se/publications/other_pub/Reconciliationreport_jacobsson_050615.pdfGoogle Scholar
Isen, A. (1990), ‘The influence of positive and negative affect on cognitive organization: some implications for development’, in N.L. Stein, B. Leventhal and T.R. Trabasso (eds), Psychological and Biological Approaches to Emotion, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 75–94.Google Scholar
Isen, A. (2001), ‘An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: theoretical issues with practical implications’, Journal of Consumer Psychology 2: 75–85.Google Scholar
Kelsall, T. (2009), Culture Under Cross Examination, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, H. and Sikkink, K. (2010), ‘Explaining the deterrence effect of human rights prosecutions in transitional countries’, International Studies Quarterly 54(4): 939–963.Google Scholar
King, K. and Meernik, J. (2011), ‘A distant court: assessing the impact of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, in G. Sluiter, B. Swart and A. Zahar (eds), The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 7–53.Google Scholar
Klarin, M. (2009), ‘The impact of the ICTY trials on public opinion in the former Yugoslavia’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 7: 89–96.Google Scholar
Lamont, C. (2010), International Criminal Justice and the Politics of Compliance, Farnham, England: Ashgate Press.Google Scholar
Leebaw, Bronwyn Anne. (2008), ‘The irreconcilable goals of transitional justice’, Human Rights Quarterly 30(1): 95–118.Google Scholar
Lyubomirksy, S., King, L. and Diener, E. (2005), ‘The benefits of frequent positive affect: does happiness lead to success’, Psychological Bulletin 6: 803–855.Google Scholar
Meernik, J. (2014), ‘A psychological jurisprudence model of public opinion and international prosecution’, International Area Studies Review 17: 3–20.Google Scholar
Meernik, J., Nichols, A. and King, K. (2010), ‘The impact of international tribunals and domestic trials on peace and human rights after civil war’, International Studies Perspectives 11(4): 309–334.Google Scholar
Mendeloff, D. (2004), ‘Truth-seeking, truth-telling, and postconflict peacebuilding: curb the enthusiasm?’, International Studies Review 6(3): 355–380.Google Scholar
Mladjenovic, L. (2004), ‘The ICTY: the validation of the experiences of survivors’, in S. Ratner and J.L. Bischoff (eds), International War Crimes Trials: Making a Difference? Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 59–65.Google Scholar
Nadler, R.T., Rabi, R. and Minda, J.P. (2010), ‘Better mood and better performance: learning rule-described categories is enhanced by positive mood’, Psychological Science 21: 1770–1776.Google Scholar
Nettelfield, L. (2010), Courting Democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, T., Payne, L. and Reiter, A. (2010), Transitional Justice in the Balance, Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
Orentlicher, D. (2008), ‘Shrinking the space for denial: the impact of the ICTY in Serbia’, Open Society Justice Initiative. Retrieved 7 December 2009 from http://www.grotiuscentre.org/files/NWOOpenSocietyImpactICTY.pdfGoogle Scholar
Peskin, V. (2005), ‘Beyond victor’s justice? The challenge of prosecuting the winners at the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda’, Journal of Human Rights 4: 213–231.Google Scholar
Peskin, V. (2008), International Justice in Rwanda and the Balkans: Virtual Trials and the Struggle for State Cooperation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saxon, D. (2005), ‘Exporting justice: perceptions of the ICTY among the Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim communities in the former Yugoslavia’, Journal of Human Rights 4: 559–572.Google Scholar
Sikkink, K. (2011), The Justice Cascade, New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Snyder, J. and Vinjamuri, L. (2003–04), ‘Trials and errors: principles and pragmatism in strategies of international justice’, International Security 28: 5–44.Google Scholar
Spini, D., Elcheroth, G. and Fasel, R. (2008), ‘The impact of group norms and generalization of risks across groups on judgments of war behavior’, Political Psychology 29: 919–941.Google Scholar
Subotic, J. (2009), ‘Expanding the scope of post-conflict justice: individual, state and societal responsibility for mass atrocity’, Journal of Peace Research 48: 157–169.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.R. and Yuen, H. (2002), Trust in the Law, New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Taylor, L.K. and Dukalskis, A. (2012), ‘Old truths and new politics: does truth commission publicness impact democratization?’, Journal of Peace Research 49: 671–684.Google Scholar
Thoms, O.N.T., Ron, J. and Paris, R. (2010), ‘State-level effects of transitional justice: what do we know?’, International Journal of Transitional Justice 4(3): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. (1990), Why People Obey the Law, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. and Darley, J. (2000), ‘Building a law-abiding society: taking public views about morality and the legitimacy of legal authorities into account when formulating substantive law’, Hofstra Law Review 28: 707–739.Google Scholar
UN Development Program Early Warning System Special Report (2005), ‘Justice and truth in Bosnia and Herzegovina: public perceptions’. Retrieved 7 December 2009 from http://www.undp.ba/Google Scholar