Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKim, Hun Joonen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:43:20Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:43:20Z
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.date.modified2013-06-26T02:58:31Z
dc.identifier.issn00223433en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0022343311431600en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/46926
dc.description.abstractOver the last three decades, a growing number of countries have experienced a transition from authoritarianism to democracy, and the new governments have been increasingly expected to address past human rights violations. While the academic literature on the impact of human rights prosecution is relatively well developed, the literature on the causes of such prosecution is still sparse. Why do states pursue criminal prosecutions against former state officials on the charge of human rights violations? This article answers this question by testing three key theories: the balance of power between old and new elites, transnational advocacy networks, and the diffusion theory. I conduct a crossnational study of 71 countries that were in a state of democratic transitions between 1980 and 2006, using a new dataset on domestic human rights prosecutions. I find strong evidence to support the transnational advocacy networks and diffusion explanations. First, active domestic and international human rights advocacy for individual criminal accountability is a key factor guaranteeing persistent and frequent human rights prosecutions. My study further shows that domestic advocacy plays a crucial role in criminal prosecutions of high-profile state officials while international pressure is more effective in promoting prosecutions of low-profile officials. Second, the diffusion theory is also supported since the occurrence of human rights prosecution in neighboring countries is a relevant factor. Interestingly, transitional countries are most sensitive to trials occurring in culturally or linguistically similar countries and this supports the constructivist norm diffusion theory, which focuses on the role of identity and communication in the diffusion process. However, I find that the power balance explanation, which has been the prevailing explanation, is valid only for the immediate use of human rights prosecutions.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.format.extent603377 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherSageen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom305en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto320en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue2en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Peace Researchen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume49en_US
dc.rights.retentionNen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchInternational Relationsen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode160607en_US
dc.titleStructural determinants of human rights prosecution after democratic transitionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.facultyGriffith Business School, Department of International Business and Asian Studiesen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2012 The Author. This is the author-manuscript version of the paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.en_US
gro.date.issued2012
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record