Preemptive Justice in the Fog of War: During-Conflict Justice and Recurrence

• In Event: Conflict Processes 3 & Political Psychology Virtual Poster Session
  In Virtual Poster Session: Conflict Processes 3 Virtual Poster Room

Abstract

Civil conflicts are often followed by justice measures intended to prevent the recurrence of violence. However, we also see many of these measures being used in the midst of conflicts as well; do these During-Conflict Justice (DCJ) mechanisms also affect the risk of recurrence? At least one DCJ mechanism has been implemented in 76% of civil conflicts from 1946-2011, but we have little idea of how they impact the risk of future unrest. We argue that, as compared to their post-conflict counterparts, certain DCJ mechanisms run a higher risk of exacerbating or generating new grievances, ultimately increasing the likelihood of subsequent conflict episodes. Results from a series of Cox Proportional Hazard models analyzing a global sample of conflict-affected states between 1946-2006 offer initial support for our expectations. DCJ in the form of trials increases the risk of recurrence, while DCJ amnesties on their own (without trials also being held in the midst of fighting) decrease this risk. Further, DCJ paired with post-conflict justice (PCJ) mechanisms corresponds to a lower likelihood of renewed unrest, but the opposite is true if PCJ is absent following a conflict that featured DCJ. Our results suggest that the wide array of conflict-related justice mechanisms must be carefully designed and implemented in order to avoid future episodes of violence.

Authors

• Rachel Dawn Van Nostrand, University of Arizona

• Jessica Maves Braithwaite, University of Arizona