We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Beyond Academia

The International Interactions Policy Blog

Find out more

International Interactions is a peer-reviewed journal with direct relevance to a wide and interdisciplinary audience. Readers include political scientists, economists, historians, mathematicians, statisticians, anthropologists, sociologists, and other social science researchers with an interest in international relations, as well as informed professionals in business and government.

This newly launched blog initiative aims to synthesize scholarly findings for a practitioner audience. Each blog post describes the policy takeaways of a recent II article, in the authors' own words, and is accompanied by a period of free access to the original published article. This is an exciting new opportunity to share the important scholarly work of the journal with engaged policymakers who can apply this research to current issues and challenges. 

Beware of Victor’s Justice

Christoph V. Steinert describes the takeaways from his new article, "Trial fairness before impact: Tracing the link between post-conflict trials and peace stability," published online in September 2019. This article will be free-access from October 12 until December 31, 2019.
Christoph V. Steinert, University of Mannheim

Christoph Valentin Steinert is a PhD candidate in Political Science at the Graduate School for Economic and Social Science, University of Mannheim, Germany. Learn more about Christoph here, and follow him on Twitter @ChrisVSteinert.

Post-conflict trials: A means of reconciliation or a partisan opportunity?

Armed conflicts are inextricably linked with substantial injustices. While no policy can revert such harms, several instruments of transitional justice have been developed to alleviate their consequences. These instruments include—most notably—post-conflict trials that are frequently deemed indispensable to restore the dignity of victims. Particularly since the end of the Cold War, there has been an unprecedented surge of prosecutions after armed conflicts, a phenomenon described as the justice cascade. Pushed by the human rights community, the creation of accountability for perpetrators of human rights violations is nowadays regarded as a key objective of post-conflict reconstruction. However, do post-conflict trials deliver what they promise?

To answer this question, I collected expert ratings on all major post-conflict trials implemented between 1946 and 2006 as recorded by the Post-Conflict Justice Dataset. Country experts—identified by publications on the respective post-conflict contexts—rated several items measuring the fairness of these post-conflict trials. The results demonstrate that the majority of the post-conflict trials (72%) were partisan, with substantial biases against the political opposition. Biased post-conflict trials were spread around the globe while only one post-conflict trial, namely the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, was deemed as largely unbiased (see Figure 1). Beyond the numerical ratings, several experts provided detailed descriptions about the post-conflict trials under investigation. They stated, for instance, that “there was no attempt at reconciliation” (Prof. Christina Cliff on Burundi 1965), that “supporters of the regime were generally not indicted” (Prof. Jean-Phillipe Belleau on Haiti 1991), that “the process focused only on a very narrow group of perpetrators” (Prof. Randall Fegley on Equatorial Guinea 1979), that “confessions [were] enforced by torture” (Prof. Patrick Peebles on Sri Lanka 1971), or that there was a “one-sided show trial” (Prof. Sheila Carapico on North Yemen 1986).

In light of these findings, it becomes clear that post-conflict trials are not necessarily an instrument to create accountability for perpetrators of violence. Instead, they are frequently manipulated by post-conflict governments that seek to consolidate their position in power. Such political biases tend to result in excessive punishments of opposition forces while government allies are systematically pardoned. Hence, there is no inherent value in post-conflict prosecutions when judicial independence is under threat. How can we identify post-conflict contexts where political manipulations are most likely to occur? And which types of post-conflict trials are most likely to be biased?

Figure 1: Post-conflict trials (1946-2006)

By systematically studying predictors of biased post-conflict trials, I find that all partisan trials in the studied time period have been domestically implemented. None of them has been implemented by external actors in an international tribunal. In contrast, 80% of the internationally implemented post-conflict criminal prosecutions have been classified as impartial. Some scholars have criticized such international criminal prosecutions for their lack of legitimacy among domestic populations; however, given that domestic prosecutions are particularly prone to biases, it could be replied that international tribunals are essential to provide impartial proceedings.

These findings are particularly prescient in the wake of decisive, one-sided battlefield outcomes—81% of the partisan post-conflict trials were implemented after victories, while less than 10% were implemented after bargained solutions. In a multivariate model including all global post-conflict environments between 1946 and 2006, victorious battle-outcomes are a significant predictor for the implementation of partisan post-conflict trials. Hence, criminal justice after victories on the battlefield tends to take the shape of one-sided victor’s justice.

Beyond that, the majority of partisan post-conflict trials were implemented after internal conflicts and they were more likely after territorial conflicts. Partisan post-conflict trials were also more frequently combined with amnesties than impartial proceedings. Impartial post-conflict trials, in contrast, were significantly more likely in rich countries with high levels of GDP per capita. This suggests that certain economic capacities are essential to ensure unbiased proceedings. Further, the likelihood of impartial post-conflict trials is higher after conflicts with greater numbers of battle deaths. This could imply that accountability-seeking is more likely if conflicts were particularly destructive.

What can be learned from these findings? While important ethical and legal rationales call for extensive prosecutions after armed conflicts, it is a precondition to consider whether judicial independence is under threat. If prosecutions are likely to be politically biased, they neither deliver accountability nor do they contribute to reconciliation. Just as elections do not necessarily guarantee democracy, post-conflict trials are no guarantee of justice. Therefore, this study suggests that the transitional justice community should pay close attention to potential indicators for biased proceedings, such as victories of one conflict party or a lack of economic resources. In such contexts, international tribunals implemented by impartial actors may be the preferred option to ensure perpetrators of human rights violations are held accountable.


Read the published article

Reconsidering Humanitarian Military Intervention

Thorsten Gromes & Matthias Dembinski outline the findings from their article, "Practices and outcomes of humanitarian military interventions: a new data set," published online in July 2019.

Read the policy post

Read the published article*

*Free-access until November 30, 2019.

Thorsten Gromes, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt

Dr. Thorsten Gromes is Project Director and Senior Researcher at the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, Germany. Learn more about Dr. Gromes here.

Matthias Dembinski, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt

Dr. Matthias Dembinski is Deputy Chairman of the Research Council, Project Director, and Senior Researcher at the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, Germany. Learn more about Dr. Dembinski here.

Human Rights: International Norms, International Shaming

Zhanna Terechshenko, Charles Crabtree, Kristine Eck & Christopher J. Fariss share surprising findings from their peer-reviewed article, "Evaluating the influence of international norms and shaming on state respect for rights: an audit experiment with foreign embassies," published in International Interactions Vol. 45 Issue 4.

Read the policy post

Read the published article*

*This article is open access, which means it is available to everyone! 

Zhanna Terechshenko, PhD Candidate, Penn State

Zhanna Terechshenko is a PhD candidate in Political Science and Social Data Analytics at the Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA. Learn more about Zhanna here, and follow her on Twitter @z_terechshenko

Charles Crabtree, PhD, Dartmouth College

Charles Crabtree, PhD, is a Visiting Scholar in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. Learn more about Dr. Crabtree here, and follow him on Twitter @cdcrabtree.

Kristine Eck, Uppsala University

Dr. Kristine Eck is an Associate Professor and Director of the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, Uppsala University, Sweden. Learn more about Dr. Eck.

Christopher J. Fariss, University of Michigan

Dr. Christopher J. Fariss is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. Learn more about Dr. Fariss here, and follow him on Twitter @cjfariss.

A New Dataset on the First Intifada

Eitan Y. Alimi & Alon Burstein sum up the policy implications detailed in their peer-reviewed article with Gregory M. Maney, "Beyond the media’s radar: Introducing the Intifada Non-Media-Based Dataset," published in International Interactions Vol. 45 Issue 4.
Prof. Eitan Alimi, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Eitan Alimi, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Political Sociology at The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. Learn more about Prof. Alimi.

Dr. Gregory Maney, formerly of Hofstra University

Gregory Maney, PhD, was the Harry H. Wachtel Distinguished Professor for the Study of Nonviolent Social Change at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA. Prof. Maney passed away in 2017. Learn more about his life's work and legacy.

Alon Burstein, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Alon Burstein is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. Learn more about Alon.

IMF Lending and FDI Outflows: A Sectoral Perspective

Michael Breen & Patrick J. W. Egan explain the key policy takeaways from their peer-reviewed article, "The Catalytic Effect of IMF Lending: Evidence from Sectoral FDI Data," published in International Interactions Vol. 45 Issue 3.
Dr. Michael Breen, Dublin City University

Dr. Michael Breen is an Associate Professor at the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland. Learn more about Dr. Breen here, and follow him on Twitter @mbreen3. 

Dr. Patrick J. W. Egan, Tulane University

Dr. Patrick J. W. Egan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Learn more about Dr. Egan.

International Interactions

International Interactions is a leading interdisciplinary journal that publishes original empirical, analytic, and theoretical studies of conflict and political economy. The journal has a particular interest in research that focuses upon the broad range of relations and interactions among the actors in the global system. Relevant topics include ethnic and religious conflict, interstate and intrastate conflict, conflict resolution, conflict management, economic development, regional integration, trade relations, institutions, globalization, terrorism, and geopolitical analyses. The journal aims to promote interaction among social science disciplines by encouraging interdisciplinary work among political scientists, economists, sociologists, anthropologists, geographers, statisticians, and mathematicians.

Visit Journal Articles

International Interactions cover

Stay up to date

Follow International Interactions on Twitter @II_journal! Latest posts previewed here.
View more posts