The politics of punishment and the siege of sarajevo: Toward a conflict theory of perceived international (In)justice

Sanja Kutnjak Ivković*, John Hagan

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

36 Scopus citations

Abstract

Liberal legalism noncontroversially advocates procedural fairness and due process in institutions such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The visible conflicts come with the ebb and flow of international jurisdictional claims, suspicions of racial/ethnic and cultural biases in deliberations and decisions, prioritization of purposes in sentencing decisions, and the intrusion of institutional and international political debates into the liberal legal agenda. These conflicts threaten to create a legitimacy deficit in diffuse support for the ICTY. We examine these conflicts within the context of two surveys about the ICTY conducted in Sarajevo in 2000 and 2003. The results indicate that the citizens of Sarajevo increasingly believe that the ICTY is politically influenced by internationally appointed judges, peaking with the sentencing of Stanislav Galic for the siege of Sarajevo. This conflict focuses on issues of substantive rather than procedural justice and is increasingly articulated as a rejection of international political intervention that subverts the need for a local sense of justice. This may be a sequence of political conflict and disillusionment that is as inevitable as it is unavoidable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)369-410
Number of pages42
JournalLaw and Society Review
Volume40
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2006

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The politics of punishment and the siege of sarajevo: Toward a conflict theory of perceived international (In)justice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this