Pub Date : 2023-02-23DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2173003
Priyamvada Yarnell
Abstract Despite being found guilty of atrocity crimes, 54 of the 90 perpetrators sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were granted unconditional early release (UER) between 1998 and 2018. As such, they were free to return, often to be greeted as heroes by welcoming crowds. Some high-profile figures rejected the ICTY’s verdict, such as Biljana Plavšić, asserting that she had done “nothing wrong.” This article sets out how the Tribunal thwarted an expressive value it had purported to achieve through trying and sentencing some of the most egregious crimes known to humankind when they granted UER. This expressive value was an authoritative stigmatization of the perpetrators and their crimes. This perceived destigmatization had, in turn, the capacity to be manipulated by political elites, in an ethnically divided, postconflict society, to challenge the historical record of the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 2001. This article analyzes the societal ramifications of UER, as it examines local reactions to UER that emerged from 51 interviews conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). In January 2019, this practice changed and conditions were attached to early release. Nevertheless, the negative repercussions caused by UER over 18 years provide an important lesson for other ICTs.
{"title":"“Adding fuel to the fire”: Unconditional early release of perpetrators convicted by the ICTY, views from Bosnia and Herzegovina","authors":"Priyamvada Yarnell","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2173003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2173003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite being found guilty of atrocity crimes, 54 of the 90 perpetrators sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were granted unconditional early release (UER) between 1998 and 2018. As such, they were free to return, often to be greeted as heroes by welcoming crowds. Some high-profile figures rejected the ICTY’s verdict, such as Biljana Plavšić, asserting that she had done “nothing wrong.” This article sets out how the Tribunal thwarted an expressive value it had purported to achieve through trying and sentencing some of the most egregious crimes known to humankind when they granted UER. This expressive value was an authoritative stigmatization of the perpetrators and their crimes. This perceived destigmatization had, in turn, the capacity to be manipulated by political elites, in an ethnically divided, postconflict society, to challenge the historical record of the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 2001. This article analyzes the societal ramifications of UER, as it examines local reactions to UER that emerged from 51 interviews conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). In January 2019, this practice changed and conditions were attached to early release. Nevertheless, the negative repercussions caused by UER over 18 years provide an important lesson for other ICTs.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43823560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-15DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2170709
M. Van Hout, J. Wessels
Abstract In 2021, an estimated 3.95 million foreign nationals resided in South Africa, with no data available on numbers of displaced persons or undocumented migrants residing without legal or valid immigration status. Surveillance data on immigration detention are scant. We present a socio-legal account of the historical evolution of South African immigration detention regulation in post-apartheid timeframes, with a view to providing a legal realist assessment of the socio- and politico-legal dimensions pertinent to human rights assurances of immigration detainees in South Africa. The realist focus is on scrutinizing South Africa’s progress in upholding the rights of immigration detainees and illustrating the contemporary complexities in ensuring due process in the (co)application of the Immigration Act (and Refugees Act) explicitly regarding immigration detention processes and practices. We present the applicable international and regional African human rights treaties, domestic regulations, and relevant jurisprudence to the rights of immigration detainees in South Africa. The generated realist narrative is cognizant of the contextual forces of migration into South Africa, securitization agendas, and violations of basic human rights and due process, and illustrates various gaps in the application of domestic laws, policies, and standards of care regarding immigration detention when evaluated against the rule of law.
{"title":"#ForeignersMustGo versus “in favorem libertatis”: Human rights violations and procedural irregularities in South African immigration detention law","authors":"M. Van Hout, J. Wessels","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2170709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2170709","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2021, an estimated 3.95 million foreign nationals resided in South Africa, with no data available on numbers of displaced persons or undocumented migrants residing without legal or valid immigration status. Surveillance data on immigration detention are scant. We present a socio-legal account of the historical evolution of South African immigration detention regulation in post-apartheid timeframes, with a view to providing a legal realist assessment of the socio- and politico-legal dimensions pertinent to human rights assurances of immigration detainees in South Africa. The realist focus is on scrutinizing South Africa’s progress in upholding the rights of immigration detainees and illustrating the contemporary complexities in ensuring due process in the (co)application of the Immigration Act (and Refugees Act) explicitly regarding immigration detention processes and practices. We present the applicable international and regional African human rights treaties, domestic regulations, and relevant jurisprudence to the rights of immigration detainees in South Africa. The generated realist narrative is cognizant of the contextual forces of migration into South Africa, securitization agendas, and violations of basic human rights and due process, and illustrates various gaps in the application of domestic laws, policies, and standards of care regarding immigration detention when evaluated against the rule of law.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46610636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-13DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2170708
Douaa Sheet
Abstract This article argues that conceptions of time are undertheorized in human rights studies and that such conceptions have a significant impact on how people participate in systems of justice. Within the context of the transitional justice process launched in Tunisia in the aftermath of the 2011 Arab Spring—a context deeply shaped by an Islamist/secular divide—I examine how competing notions of time led to opposing modes of participation in reparative justice. Specifically, I analyze the Islamic principle thawāb (reward in the afterlife for suffering experienced on earth) as a theological notion of time and show how it structured Islamist victims’ participation in reparations measures. Observing that critiques of reparative justice have developed through a strictly secular notion of time, this article foregrounds Islamic concepts that are still underrepresented in such studies, particularly Islamic notions of time and the afterlife. I argue that thawāb contests the universalism of the secular, linear notion of past-present-future dominant in human rights and transitional justice studies.
{"title":"On conceptions of time in human rights studies: The afterlife, Islam, and reparative justice in post-uprising Tunisia","authors":"Douaa Sheet","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2170708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2170708","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article argues that conceptions of time are undertheorized in human rights studies and that such conceptions have a significant impact on how people participate in systems of justice. Within the context of the transitional justice process launched in Tunisia in the aftermath of the 2011 Arab Spring—a context deeply shaped by an Islamist/secular divide—I examine how competing notions of time led to opposing modes of participation in reparative justice. Specifically, I analyze the Islamic principle thawāb (reward in the afterlife for suffering experienced on earth) as a theological notion of time and show how it structured Islamist victims’ participation in reparations measures. Observing that critiques of reparative justice have developed through a strictly secular notion of time, this article foregrounds Islamic concepts that are still underrepresented in such studies, particularly Islamic notions of time and the afterlife. I argue that thawāb contests the universalism of the secular, linear notion of past-present-future dominant in human rights and transitional justice studies.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46589681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-10DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2023.2173002
Timothy Longman
Abstract Rwanda has been a focus of substantial scholarly attention, but recent regulations there have made conducting research increasingly challenging. Four books from diverse disciplines show that, despite the ways in which the authoritarian context places constraints on what research can be undertaken and how it can be done, solid scholarship on Rwanda can continue to be produced. They also show that the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi remains the focal point of nearly every book on the country, even those focused on society since 1994.
{"title":"Researching under constraints: Recent books on post-genocide Rwanda","authors":"Timothy Longman","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2173002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2173002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Rwanda has been a focus of substantial scholarly attention, but recent regulations there have made conducting research increasingly challenging. Four books from diverse disciplines show that, despite the ways in which the authoritarian context places constraints on what research can be undertaken and how it can be done, solid scholarship on Rwanda can continue to be produced. They also show that the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi remains the focal point of nearly every book on the country, even those focused on society since 1994.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45542268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-27DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2151834
Jonathan A. Solis, Kelebogile Zvobgo
Abstract A free and independent press monitors government actions, broadcasts public grievances, and facilitates debate and dissent among citizens. Because of this, some executives run interference—censoring newspapers, harassing journalists, and shutting down media outlets—whereas other executives do not. What explains this variation? We argue that executives decide to repress or to respect the press based on the sanctions they anticipate from two important constituencies: courts and citizens. We expect that attacks are less likely when courts can make adverse rulings and when citizens can vote leaders out of office. In addition, we suggest that these constraints can function as substitutes; we anticipate the reductive effect of judicial independence wanes as the level of electoral democracy rises, making courts vital to protecting journalists in less democratic systems. We evaluate these expectations using panel data on executive branch attacks on the press in 175 countries, from 1949 to 2016, and find strong support.
{"title":"Defending the watchdogs: How citizens and courts protect the press","authors":"Jonathan A. Solis, Kelebogile Zvobgo","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2151834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2151834","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A free and independent press monitors government actions, broadcasts public grievances, and facilitates debate and dissent among citizens. Because of this, some executives run interference—censoring newspapers, harassing journalists, and shutting down media outlets—whereas other executives do not. What explains this variation? We argue that executives decide to repress or to respect the press based on the sanctions they anticipate from two important constituencies: courts and citizens. We expect that attacks are less likely when courts can make adverse rulings and when citizens can vote leaders out of office. In addition, we suggest that these constraints can function as substitutes; we anticipate the reductive effect of judicial independence wanes as the level of electoral democracy rises, making courts vital to protecting journalists in less democratic systems. We evaluate these expectations using panel data on executive branch attacks on the press in 175 countries, from 1949 to 2016, and find strong support.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44419972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-20DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2158723
Shanshan Lian, Amanda Murdie
Abstract A crackdown on the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has recently swept the globe. When faced with increased restrictions, how do NGOs respond? We argue there is a curvilinear relationship between increases in NGO repression and the conflict-to-cooperative nature of NGO interactions with a government. On one end of the spectrum, when civil society repression is limited or nonexistent, NGOs have many reasons to be cooperative with the government. As NGO repression increases, we should see NGOs take more of a conflictual stance, publicly voicing their displeasure and bringing attention to the abuses and deficiencies they see within the regime. As NGO repression continues to increase, however, there will be a tipping point at which the NGOs that remain in the country will once again take a more cooperative tack with the government. We use a quantitative event data approach to examine the implications of our arguments.
{"title":"How closing civil society space affects NGO-Government interactions","authors":"Shanshan Lian, Amanda Murdie","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2158723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2158723","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A crackdown on the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has recently swept the globe. When faced with increased restrictions, how do NGOs respond? We argue there is a curvilinear relationship between increases in NGO repression and the conflict-to-cooperative nature of NGO interactions with a government. On one end of the spectrum, when civil society repression is limited or nonexistent, NGOs have many reasons to be cooperative with the government. As NGO repression increases, we should see NGOs take more of a conflictual stance, publicly voicing their displeasure and bringing attention to the abuses and deficiencies they see within the regime. As NGO repression continues to increase, however, there will be a tipping point at which the NGOs that remain in the country will once again take a more cooperative tack with the government. We use a quantitative event data approach to examine the implications of our arguments.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45588263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-13DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2158724
H. M. Haugen
Abstract The first decade of the 21st century had annual United Nations (UN) resolutions on the defamation of religion, followed by a shorter period with resolutions on promoting human rights and fundamental freedom through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind. However, in 2011, the strongest promoter of the defamation of religion resolutions, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), chose to shift the focus in the UN on individual victims, not the religions as such, resulting in the Istanbul Process. Moreover, the exploration of links between Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resulted in the Rabat Plan of Action. Other progress within freedom of religion or belief include the Faith4Rights resources, acknowledging the right to change one’s religion and stopping violations in the name of "honour," as well as other approaches, that so far have inadequate impact on the domestic level.
{"title":"A decade of revitalizing UN work concerning freedom of religion or belief (2010–2020)","authors":"H. M. Haugen","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2158724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2158724","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The first decade of the 21st century had annual United Nations (UN) resolutions on the defamation of religion, followed by a shorter period with resolutions on promoting human rights and fundamental freedom through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind. However, in 2011, the strongest promoter of the defamation of religion resolutions, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), chose to shift the focus in the UN on individual victims, not the religions as such, resulting in the Istanbul Process. Moreover, the exploration of links between Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resulted in the Rabat Plan of Action. Other progress within freedom of religion or belief include the Faith4Rights resources, acknowledging the right to change one’s religion and stopping violations in the name of \"honour,\" as well as other approaches, that so far have inadequate impact on the domestic level.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44633886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2150516
Genevieve Bates, Shauna N. Gillooly
Abstract In contemporary international politics, states face numerous challenges to their sovereignty, especially in the realm of human rights. We argue that rather than simply fight back when sovereignty is challenged, states sometimes instrumentalize sovereignty challenges in pursuit of their own domestic and international political agendas. We identify two key ways that governments frame sovereignty challenges to use in these pursuits, what we call negotiation and legitimation strategies, and outline the conditions under which states may choose to employ these strategies. In order to evaluate our argument, we present a case study of Colombia’s interactions with the International Criminal Court over the course of the ICC’s seventeen-year preliminary examination. Drawing on evidence gathered from ICC records and media archives from the Colombian executive, we show first that the ICC continually challenged Colombian sovereignty by threatening to intervene, especially during the peace negotiations with the FARC. Rather than fight back against the sovereignty challenge or instrumentalize the Court to punish enemies, we also show that three successive Colombian administrations used this challenge to frame debates around contentious domestic human rights policies.
{"title":"Between negotiation and legitimation: The international criminal court and the political use of sovereignty challenges","authors":"Genevieve Bates, Shauna N. Gillooly","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2150516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2150516","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In contemporary international politics, states face numerous challenges to their sovereignty, especially in the realm of human rights. We argue that rather than simply fight back when sovereignty is challenged, states sometimes instrumentalize sovereignty challenges in pursuit of their own domestic and international political agendas. We identify two key ways that governments frame sovereignty challenges to use in these pursuits, what we call negotiation and legitimation strategies, and outline the conditions under which states may choose to employ these strategies. In order to evaluate our argument, we present a case study of Colombia’s interactions with the International Criminal Court over the course of the ICC’s seventeen-year preliminary examination. Drawing on evidence gathered from ICC records and media archives from the Colombian executive, we show first that the ICC continually challenged Colombian sovereignty by threatening to intervene, especially during the peace negotiations with the FARC. Rather than fight back against the sovereignty challenge or instrumentalize the Court to punish enemies, we also show that three successive Colombian administrations used this challenge to frame debates around contentious domestic human rights policies.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43243237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2156276
Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm, K. Ainley
Abstract In this article, we introduce a new dataset on financial support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and examine how this support has changed over its two decades of existence. We first consider how the ICC’s overall budget has changed over time. Then, we explore the evolution of support from individual donor governments. In addition, given former Prosecutor Bensouda’s emphasis on the effective investigation and prosecution of sexual and gender-based crimes, we examine the extent to which ICC funding is consistent with its apparent commitment to gender justice. Our research contributes to debates about the cost of justice, donors and norm diffusion, South–North clashes over the definition and delivery of justice, and gender mainstreaming within costly international justice processes. We argue that the level of funding state parties and other bodies allocate to particular forms of justice is a better proxy for their commitment to justice than their rhetoric, and conclude that the patterns of funding seen at the ICC support the claim that the Court remains, to a significant extent, a tool of powerful states.
{"title":"The evolution of funding for the International Criminal Court: Budgets, donors and gender justice","authors":"Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm, K. Ainley","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2156276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2156276","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we introduce a new dataset on financial support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and examine how this support has changed over its two decades of existence. We first consider how the ICC’s overall budget has changed over time. Then, we explore the evolution of support from individual donor governments. In addition, given former Prosecutor Bensouda’s emphasis on the effective investigation and prosecution of sexual and gender-based crimes, we examine the extent to which ICC funding is consistent with its apparent commitment to gender justice. Our research contributes to debates about the cost of justice, donors and norm diffusion, South–North clashes over the definition and delivery of justice, and gender mainstreaming within costly international justice processes. We argue that the level of funding state parties and other bodies allocate to particular forms of justice is a better proxy for their commitment to justice than their rhetoric, and conclude that the patterns of funding seen at the ICC support the claim that the Court remains, to a significant extent, a tool of powerful states.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47844389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14754835.2022.2150517
M. Broache, Juhi Kore
Abstract Human rights activists, international organizations, and certain governments have championed prosecutions as a strategy to prevent conflict-related sexual violence, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has focused extensively on prosecuting sexual violence crimes during its first two decades of operations. However, even as a growing body of empirical evidence suggests that the ICC contributes to improved human rights practices and the prevention of other atrocity crimes, such as violence against civilians, claims concerning the preventive effects of prosecutions on sexual violence remain largely untested. The purpose of this article is to test these claims. To this end, we analyzed the effects of ICC jurisdiction, interventions, and cross-case actions on sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts from 1989 to 2018, using the Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict (SVAC) dataset. Contrary to the optimistic claims of proponents of prosecutions, we found that ICC jurisdiction and cross-case actions have negligible effects for this category of actors. We also found that ICC interventions are associated with increased sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts. These findings suggest that prevention might require alternative—and, in some cases, potentially costlier—interventions.
{"title":"Can the International Criminal Court prevent sexual violence in armed conflict?","authors":"M. Broache, Juhi Kore","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2022.2150517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2022.2150517","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Human rights activists, international organizations, and certain governments have championed prosecutions as a strategy to prevent conflict-related sexual violence, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has focused extensively on prosecuting sexual violence crimes during its first two decades of operations. However, even as a growing body of empirical evidence suggests that the ICC contributes to improved human rights practices and the prevention of other atrocity crimes, such as violence against civilians, claims concerning the preventive effects of prosecutions on sexual violence remain largely untested. The purpose of this article is to test these claims. To this end, we analyzed the effects of ICC jurisdiction, interventions, and cross-case actions on sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts from 1989 to 2018, using the Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict (SVAC) dataset. Contrary to the optimistic claims of proponents of prosecutions, we found that ICC jurisdiction and cross-case actions have negligible effects for this category of actors. We also found that ICC interventions are associated with increased sexual violence by government forces in intrastate conflicts. These findings suggest that prevention might require alternative—and, in some cases, potentially costlier—interventions.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47142086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：