Judging Their Own: When and Why States Pursue Accountability for Human Rights Violations of Security Forces

abstract: What explains why governments and militaries pursue accountability against some human rights violations committed by members of their armed forces during ongoing conflicts, but not other violations? Further, what are the consequences of such prosecutions for their military and governmental...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Other Authors: Simmons, Alan James (Author)
Format: Doctoral Thesis
Language:English
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.49278
id ndltd-asu.edu-item-49278
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-asu.edu-item-492782018-06-22T03:09:32Z Judging Their Own: When and Why States Pursue Accountability for Human Rights Violations of Security Forces abstract: What explains why governments and militaries pursue accountability against some human rights violations committed by members of their armed forces during ongoing conflicts, but not other violations? Further, what are the consequences of such prosecutions for their military and governmental objectives? The theory put forth by this study suggests that rather than only the natural outcome of strong rule of law, domestic prosecutions within a state’s security apparatus represents a strategic choice made by political and military actors. I employ a strategic actor approach to the pursuit of accountability, suggesting that the likelihood of accountability increases when elites perceive they will gain politically or militarily from such actions. I investigate these claims using both qualitative and quantitative methods in a comparative study across the United States and the United Kingdom. This project contributes to interdisciplinary scholarly research relevant to human rights studies, human rights law, political science, democratic state-building, democratic governance, elite decision making, counter-insurgency, protests, international sanctions, and conflict resolution. Particularly, this dissertation speaks to the intersection of strategy and law, or “lawfare” a method of warfare where law is used as means of realizing a military objective (Dunlap 2001). It provides generalizable results extending well beyond the cases analyzed. Thus, the results of this project will interest those dealing with questions relating to legitimacy, human rights, and elite decision making throughout the democratic world. Dissertation/Thesis Simmons, Alan James (Author) Wood, Reed (Advisor) Peskin, Victor (Advisor) Lake, Milli (Committee member) Arizona State University (Publisher) Political science International law International relations Human Rights Insurgency Military Courts Subnational Conflict eng 255 pages Doctoral Dissertation Political Science 2018 Doctoral Dissertation http://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.49278 http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ All Rights Reserved 2018
collection NDLTD
language English
format Doctoral Thesis
sources NDLTD
topic Political science
International law
International relations
Human Rights
Insurgency
Military Courts
Subnational Conflict
spellingShingle Political science
International law
International relations
Human Rights
Insurgency
Military Courts
Subnational Conflict
Judging Their Own: When and Why States Pursue Accountability for Human Rights Violations of Security Forces
description abstract: What explains why governments and militaries pursue accountability against some human rights violations committed by members of their armed forces during ongoing conflicts, but not other violations? Further, what are the consequences of such prosecutions for their military and governmental objectives? The theory put forth by this study suggests that rather than only the natural outcome of strong rule of law, domestic prosecutions within a state’s security apparatus represents a strategic choice made by political and military actors. I employ a strategic actor approach to the pursuit of accountability, suggesting that the likelihood of accountability increases when elites perceive they will gain politically or militarily from such actions. I investigate these claims using both qualitative and quantitative methods in a comparative study across the United States and the United Kingdom. This project contributes to interdisciplinary scholarly research relevant to human rights studies, human rights law, political science, democratic state-building, democratic governance, elite decision making, counter-insurgency, protests, international sanctions, and conflict resolution. Particularly, this dissertation speaks to the intersection of strategy and law, or “lawfare” a method of warfare where law is used as means of realizing a military objective (Dunlap 2001). It provides generalizable results extending well beyond the cases analyzed. Thus, the results of this project will interest those dealing with questions relating to legitimacy, human rights, and elite decision making throughout the democratic world. === Dissertation/Thesis === Doctoral Dissertation Political Science 2018
author2 Simmons, Alan James (Author)
author_facet Simmons, Alan James (Author)
title Judging Their Own: When and Why States Pursue Accountability for Human Rights Violations of Security Forces
title_short Judging Their Own: When and Why States Pursue Accountability for Human Rights Violations of Security Forces
title_full Judging Their Own: When and Why States Pursue Accountability for Human Rights Violations of Security Forces
title_fullStr Judging Their Own: When and Why States Pursue Accountability for Human Rights Violations of Security Forces
title_full_unstemmed Judging Their Own: When and Why States Pursue Accountability for Human Rights Violations of Security Forces
title_sort judging their own: when and why states pursue accountability for human rights violations of security forces
publishDate 2018
url http://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.49278
_version_ 1718701804027379712