This paper presents the results of a 2007 survey of victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity from Bosnia and Herzegovina. We study the level of diffuse and specific support for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) among its constituency by exploring the respondents’ views about the ICTY and the local courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia. Our results show that, whereas the ICTY was the preferred decision-maker for war crimes and crimes against humanity for the majority of the respondents, ethnicity plays a strong role in the perceptions of the ICTY’s legitimacy. Compared with Croat and Serb respondents, who typically expressed little confidence in the ICTY, the Bosniak/Muslim respondents seemed to show the greatest degree of support for the ICTY. Although the majority of the respondents evaluated the ICTY as fair, the level of support for the ICTY was sharply divided across ethnic lines as well and was related to evaluations of the ICTY’s distributive fairness and procedural fairness, and to perceptions about the judges’ (lack of) political independence. The majority of the respondents evaluated only one domestic court – the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina – as fair.
ArztD (2006) Views on the ground: The local perception of international criminal tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science601(1): 226–239.
2.
BiroMAjdukovicDCorkaloDDijpaDMilinPWeinsteinHM (2004) Attitudes towards justice and social reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. In: StoverEWeinsteinHM (eds) My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community after Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–205.
3.
Burke-WhiteWW (2007–8) The domestic influence of international criminal tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the creation of the State Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina. Columbia Journal of International Law46: 278–350.
4.
CaldeiraGAGibsonJL (1995) The legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the European Union: Models of institutional support. American Political Science Review89: 356–376.
5.
Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1994) Final Report. UN SCOR, UN Doc. S/1994/674 (1994).
6.
DelplaI (2007) In the midst of injustice: The ICTY from the perspective of some victim associations. In: BougarelXHelmsEDuijzingsG (eds) The New Bosnian Mosaic. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate, 211–234.
7.
DennisJ (1975) Trends in support for the American party system. British Journal of Political Science5: 187–230.
DoniaR (2004) Encountering the past: History at the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal. Journal of the International Institute2.
10.
EastonD (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
EllisMS (1999) Bringing justice to an embattled region – Creating and implementing the ‘Rules of the Road’ for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Berkeley Journal of International Law17: 1–25.
12.
EllisMS (2004) Coming to terms with its past – Serbia’s new court for the prosecution of war crimes. Berkeley Journal of International Law22(2): 165–194.
HelferLAlterK (2013) Legitimacy and lawmaking: A tale of three international courts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law14: 479–502.
15.
Human Rights Center and International Human Rights Law Clinic (2000) Report: Justice accountability and social reconstruction: An interview study of Bosnian judges and prosecutors. Berkeley Journal of International Law18: 102–164.
HuoYJSmithHJTylerTRLindEA (1994) Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; Is assimilation the answer? ABF Working Paper No. 9410. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.
19.
ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) (1996) Rules of the Road Agreement. URL (accessed 2 May 2016): http://www.icty.org/sid/96.
20.
ICTY (2006) Letter dated 29 May 2006 from the President of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991, addressed to the President of the Security Council. UN Doc. S/2006/353, 31May.
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2002) South East Europe Public Agenda Survey. Stockholm. URL (accessed 28 April 2016): http://www.idea.int/europe_cis/balkans/.
24.
KapisR (1978) Black ghetto diversity and anomie: A sociopolitical view. American Journal of Sociology83: 1132–1153.
25.
KarstedtS (1998) Coming to terms with the past in Germany after 1945 and 1989: Public judgments of procedures and justice. Law & Policy20: 15–56.
26.
Kutnjak IvkovićS (2001) Justice by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Stanford Journal of International Law37: 255–346.
27.
Kutnjak IvkovićSHaganJ (2011) Reclaiming Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
Kutnjak IvkovićSHaganJ (2016) Pursuit of justice and the victims of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina: An exploratory study. Crime, Law, and Social Change65(1): 1–27.
29.
LeviRHaganJDezalayS (2016) International courts in atypical political environments: The interplay of prosecutorial strategy, evidence, and court authority in international criminal law. Law and Contemporary Problems79(1).
30.
MoghaluKC (2008) Global Justice: The Politics of War Crimes Trials. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) (2004) OSCE Mission to Croatia Status Report No. 14. 5July. URL (accessed 2 May 2016): http://www.osce.org/zagreb/34957.
OSCE (2009) Views on War Crimes, the ICTY, and the National War Crimes Judiciary. URL (accessed 28 April 2016): http://www.osce.org/serbia/40751.
35.
SampsonRJBartuschDJ (1998) Legal cynicism and subcultural tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review32: 777–804.
36.
SaxonD (2005) Exporting justice: Perceptions of the ICTY among the Serbian, Croatian and Muslim communities in the former Yugoslavia. Journal of Human Rights4: 559–572.
37.
Serbia and Montenegro: Law on Organisation and Jurisdiction of Government Authorities in Prosecuting Perpetrators of War Crimes (2003) URL (accessed 28 April 2016): http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b56ce4d2.pdf.
38.
StoverE (2005) The Witnesses: War Crimes and the Promise of Justice in The Hague. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
39.
StoverEWeinsteinHM (2004) My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
TylerTR (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
TylerTR (2000) Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology35: 117–125.
42.
TylerTRLindEAHuoYH (1995) The relational model of authority: Social categorization and social orientation effects on the psychology of legitimacy. ABF Working Paper No. 9504. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.
43.
TylerTRSmithHJHuoYJOrtizDJLindEA (1998) The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology34: 470–493.
United Nations Security Council (1993) UN Security Council Resolution 827 on Establishing an International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of former Yugoslavia since1991. UN Doc. S/RES/827, 25May.
46.
WilsonR (2005) Judging history: The historical record of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Human Rights Quarterly27: 908–942.
