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.

Theories abound as to why states consent to international courts, but little research has examined how individuals decide which justice options—local trials, international trials or other transitional justice options—are the preferred venue for settling violations of international law. We demonstrate that not only do individuals hold organized and fairly sophisticated beliefs on these topics, but we can also successfully import a psychological jurisprudence model used principally in analyses of individual values regarding domestic laws to explain these beliefs. We develop a multinominal logit model of individual choices regarding their preferred justice option based on their views concerning the morality of war, the extent of their victimization and the perceived competency of international institutions.

No abstract

Intersections exist regarding how institutions and individuals respond in the wake of mass violence, and we explore one theoretical perspective: resilience—the ability to overcome in the face of adversity. By controlling for the institutional context, we analyze the microlevel impact of testifying on witnesses who testify. New survey data provide information from 300 prosecution, defence, and Chambers witnesses who appeared at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We test propositions about resilience related to trauma, motivations, contributions to justice, fair treatment, witness fatigue, and human security. Witnesses who experienced greater trauma, who were more highly motivated, who believed they contributed to justice, and who were satisfied with their current situation were more positive about testifying. Those who believed they were treated fairly by prosecution and defence were less negative. The findings add to the debate about the burden of bearing witness in post-conflict societies and why some overcome adverse experiences related to mass violence.