Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Courts and Mass Atrocity

Part of the book series: Memory Politics and Transitional Justice ((MPTJ))

  • 252 Accesses

Abstract

War is traumatic and formative. It creates narratives that define identities of individuals, ethnicities and nations. It affects how people view the world around them. The everyday and emotional Croatian narrative of the Homeland War holds this central role in Croatian society. It reverberates across the social fabric of the nation, and it dynamically interacts with processes of transitional justice. This introductory chapter asks, what effect has the transitional justice process had on narratives related to the conflict? It presents a replicable research design to unpack why war crimes trials struggle to instil human rights narratives in the societies they target. It also outlines the context within which they operated in. The Croatian case study shows that narratives presented from the top-down by courts, domestic or international, face significant obstacles in the context of everyday narratives and that their interaction is more complex than previously thought.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Albrecht, T. L., Johnson, G. M., & Walther, J. B. (1993). Understanding communication processes in focus groups. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 51–64). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Allcock, J. B. (2009). The international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In C. Ingrao & T. A. Emmert (Eds.), Confronting the Yugoslav controversies: A scholars’ initiative (pp. 346–389). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvind, T., & Stirton, L. (2010). Explaining the reception of the code Napoleon in Germany: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Legal Studies, 30, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, P. (1992). Understanding ethnographic texts. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Avdagić, S. (2010). When are concerted reforms feasible? Explaining the emergence of social pacts in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 628–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, J. T., Brown, J. E., & Ward, V. M. (1992). Techniques for analyzing focus group data. Evaluation Review, 16, 198–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S. (2003). Explaining war termination: A Boolean analysis of causes. Journal of Peace Research, 40, 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, M., & Utas, M. (2008). Mercenaries of democracy: The ‘politricks’ of remobilized combatants in the 2007 general elections, Sierra Leone. African Affairs, 107, 515–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruvellier, T., & Valinas, M. (2006). Croatia: Selected developments in transitional justice. New York: International Center for Transitional Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, V. (2001). Remaking a world: Violence, social suffering, and recovery. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Drumbl, M. A. (2007). Atrocity, punishment and international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusa, A., & Thiem, A. (2012). QCA: Qualitative comparative analysis. R package version 3.2.2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52, 887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. E., & Miller-Idriss, C. (2008). Everyday nationhood. Ethnicities, 8, 536–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, B. (2003). Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update, 19. Available at http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html. Accessed 02 Jun 2018.

  • Gibson, J. L. (2006). Can truth reconcile divided nations? In J. D. Meernik & T. David Mason (Eds.), Conflict prevention and peacebuilding in post-war societies: Sustaining the peace (pp. 176–195). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, I. (1999). Croatia: A history. London: Hurst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, S., & Heath, O. (2012). Political research: Methods and practical skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollander, J. A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 602–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hug, S. (2013). Qualitative comparative analysis: How inductive use and measurement error lead to problematic inference. Political Analysis, 21, 252–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICTY Appeals Chamber. (2004). Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, IT-95-14/2-A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jović, D. (2009). Croatia after Tudjman: The ICTY and issues of transitional justice. Chaillot Paper, 116, 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempny, M. (2012). Rethinking native anthropology: Migration and auto-ethnography in the post-accession Europe. International Review of Social Research, 2, 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004). Explaining government preferences for institutional change in EU foreign and security policy. International Organization, 58, 137–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krook, M. L. (2010). Women’s representation in parliament: A qualitative comparative analysis. Political Studies, 58, 886–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landman, T. (2008). Issues and methods in comparative politics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2002). The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13, 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (2003). Design issues. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 47–76). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, A. (2003). Croatia. In D. Brett (Ed.), Europe review 2003/04: The economic and business report (pp. 70–78). Saffron Walden: Walden Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maat, E. D. (2011). Sleeping hegemons: Third-party intervention following territorial integrity transgressions. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauthner, N. S., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37, 413–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauthner, N. S., Parry, O., & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). “The data are out there, or are they?” Implications for archiving and revisiting qualitative data. Sociology, 32, 733–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miethe, T., & Drass, K. (1999). Exploring the social context of instrumental and expressive homicides: An application of qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, M., Giblin, J., Ciccone, M., Davis, A., Fuhrman, J., et al. (2011). Social risk-management strategies in pastoral systems: A qualitative comparative analysis. Cross-Cultural Research, 45, 286–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musheno, M. C., Gregware, P. R., & Drass, K. A. (1991). Court management of AIDS disputes: A sociolegal analysis. Law & Social Inquiry, 16, 737–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettelfield, L. J. (2010). Courting democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Hague tribunal’s impact in a postwar state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obradović-Wochnik, J. (2013). Ethnic conflict and war crimes in the Balkans: The narratives of denial in post-conflict Serbia. London: I.B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiel, M. (1998). Mass atrocity, collective memory and the law. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlaković, V. (2010). Croatia, the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and general Gotovina as a political symbol. Europe-Asia Studies, 62, 1707–1740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings, P. (2003). Beyond dichotomous explanations: Explaining constitutional control of the executive with fuzzy-sets. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 541–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (1989). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangelov, I. (2014). Nationalism and the rule of law: Lessons from the Balkans and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riessman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rihoux, B. (2006). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. International Sociology, 21, 679–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooney, E., & Aoláin, F. Ní. (2018). Transitional justice from the margins: Intersections of identities, power and human rights. International Journal of Human Rights, 12, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijy001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderström, J. (2010). Ex-combatants at the polls: Exploring focus groups and electoral meaning. Anthropology Matters Journal, 12, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soldo, S., Puntarić, D., Petrovićki, Ž., & Prgomet, D. (1999). Injuries caused by antipersonnel mines in Croatian army soldiers on the east Slavonia front during the 1991–1992 war in Croatia. Military Medicine, 164, 141–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolić, I. (2016). Researching norms, narratives and transitional justice: Focus group methodology in post-conflict Croatia. Nationalities Papers, 44, 932–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolić, I. (2017). Sources of information on transitional justice in Croatia. Croatian Political Science Review, 53, 77–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, L. (2016). Using focus groups in political science and international relations. Politics, 36, 236–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subotic, J. (2009). Hijacked justice: Dealing with the past in the Balkans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, M. (2001). Croatia: A nation forged in war. New Haven: Yale Nota Bene.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitel, R. G. (2000). Transitional justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitel, R. G. (2005). The law and politics of contemporary transitional justice. Cornell International Law Journal, 38, 837–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiem, A. (2011). Conditions of intergovernmental armaments cooperation in western Europe, 1996–2006. European Political Science Review, 3, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ginkel, R. (1998). The repatriation of anthropology: Some observations on endo-ethnography. Anthropology & Medicine, 5, 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vis, B. (2009). Governments and unpopular social policy reform: Biting the bullet or steering clear? European Journal of Political Research, 48, 31–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werner, T. (2009). Congressmen of the silent south: The persistence of southern racial liberals, 1949–1964. The Journal of Politics, 71, 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L., & Farrell, R. (1990). Legal response to child sexual abuse in day care. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 284–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R., de Cilia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Živić, D. (2003). Demografske odrednice i posljedice starenja stanovništva Hrvatske [Demographic determinants and consequences of the ageing of Croatia’s population]. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 10, 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Ivor Sokolić

Authors
  1. Ivor Sokolić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sokolić, I. (2019). Introduction. In: International Courts and Mass Atrocity. Memory Politics and Transitional Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90841-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation