Abstract∞
When created, international criminal tribunals (ICTs) were not only expected to do justice but also to provide stabilization to postconflict regions, contribute to reconciliation and curb the potential denial of atrocities. Based on media content analysis, this article examines whether controversial ICT decisions triggered changes in narratives or frames about the conflicts which formed the background of the respective ICT decisions. There is no evidence for dramatic changes in the preexisting narratives about these conflicts, but we found some cases in which tribunal decisions caused changes in media frames and in elements of such frames, mostly by emphasizing outgroup victimhood and individual responsibility of ingroup perpetrators, as well as triggering effects of collective guilt externalization. Although frame changes were often observed in both democratic and nondemocratic countries, only in democratic countries with pluralist and competitive media systems could they be attributed to tribunal decisions.
In recent years and decades, authoritarian regimes and illiberal democracies have passed and enforced punitive memory laws, intending to ban certain interpretations of past events or sheltering official versions of history against challenges. This comes with no surprise in countries whose governments undermine pluralism and assume the existence of a historical truth that is stable over time, invariable, and self-explanatory. But why do liberal democracies, committed to political pluralism and open debate, pass laws that penalize challenges to certain interpretations of the past and restrict freedom of speech? This article argues that liberal democracies may do so yielding to bottom–up pressure by courts and to regulate civil law disputes for which existing legislation and jurisprudence may not suffice. Based on case studies from Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia, we also found punitive memory laws in liberal democracies narrower and more precise than in nonliberal states.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.