ADVOCACY AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIME TRIBUNALS AND TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE

In this essay, we survey the literature on international criminal tribunals and transitional justice. We argue that the literature has been dominated by two general orientations, a legalism that is premised on a logic of appropriateness and a pragmatism premised on a logic of consequences. We also consider a third orientation, guided by a logic of emotions, that recognizes the significance of transitional justice but emphasizes strategies that diverge from the model of legalism. Our primary concern is with scholarship in political science, although we also consider work from the disciplines of law, history, and sociology and from practitioners and advocates. The normative positions of scholars have heavily influenced the development of literature in this field, in which scholarship, practice, and advocacy are deeply intertwined. Advocates and individuals who have played key roles in the development of international criminal justice institutions, domestic tribunals, and truth commissions have been prominent in setting the agenda for scholars. Nonetheless, there is also a growing body of rigorous social science research that attempts to assess empirically—and sometimes critically—the claims of advocates and practitioners and to explain changing strategies of justice.