Kathryn Sikkink: The Justice Cascade

Kathryn Sikkink: The Justice Cascade

Last week, I attended a talk given by author Kathryn Sikkink on her book The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics. During the talk, she explained the premise, the main points addressed, and some of her findings; though I haven’t read her book, I would now like to.

Sikkink’s book explores the impact that prosecutions for human rights violations have, and the effectiveness of bringing violators to justice on reducing future violations. There has been a trend in recent years of more and more states and officials being held accountable for the human rights violations for which they have been responsible. This trend countermands the notion that the law follows the powerful – in other words, that victorious armies and those in power cannot be held accountable, or that they can operate free of the law.

According to Sikkink, her book addresses three key questions: Why are state officials increasingly being held accountable for human rights violations through criminal prosecution? What effects do these prosecutions have and, in particular, can human rights trials reduce human rights violations? And finally, how can the justice cascade help to advance theoretical debates about explanations for norm emergence and diffusion, compliance with international law, and deterrence of crime?

Sikkink began her explanation by discussing three “models of accountability” that demonstrate the changing opinion about who can – and should – be held accountable. The first is the Sovereign Immunity Model, which was common prior to World War II. This model held that states could not be held accountable. Post-World War II, a new model emerged: the State Accountability Model, which states that states could be held accountable using reputation, their peers, and occasional legal measures. In the 1970s and 1980s, this model was expanded into the Individual Criminal Accountability Model, which held that individuals, and not just states, could be held accountable.

The justice cascade, according to Sikkink, is a result of concentrated efforts of global human rights movements, working in conjunction with state allies, to create relevant human rights laws and prosecute cases. The use of prosecution is associated with improvements in human rights; this is a result of a combination of deterrence and normative socialization. It is as yet unknown if the severity of a punishment deters crime, but it has been shown that knowing the likelihood of punishment does indeed act as deterrence. Furthermore, high-profile prosecutions serve to transmit norms of society broadly, and this normative socialization can help to reduce human rights violations.

Sikkink argues that a decentralized, interactive system of global accountability now exists. She says that there has been an increase in prosecution for human rights violations in the domestic, foreign, and international arenas, and that the increase in foreign and international prosecution makes it more difficult for those guilty of human rights violations to escape. Latin America plays a large role in promoting the justice cascade; the ten early adopters of human rights trials were Greece, Portugal, Argentina, Bolivia, Haiti, Guatemala, Paraguay, El Salvador, Panama, and Chile during Huntington’s third wave of democracy. According to Sikkink, there are key conditions under which individual criminal accountability emerges. The emergence is most likely to occur in countries undergoing democratic transition, where regional human rights laws are already in place, and where domestic and regional human rights networks are strong. The presence of human rights networks are important because the emergence of prosecutions in a transitioning country is more likely to occur if there have been actual litigated human rights trials in the region, rather than just pressure for them. Furthermore, if a state has a monopoly over prosecution, it is less likely to prosecute its officials well.

Currently, there are more countries with transition than with Transitional Trial Experience, but both numbers have generally increased over the years. Sikkink showed data which demonstrates that states with more trial experience tend to be less repressed, and states with multiple years of trials show a more consistent pattern of improvement. It is important to keep in mind that trials don’t control everything; structural factors such as inequality, poverty, and war have a greater long-term impact on number of human rights violations. However, trials are easier to carry out than solutions to those long-term factors and therefore still prove useful in combating violations.

Following her brief overview of her book, which left me curious to learn more and better understand her findings, Sikkink opened the floor to questions. Through her responses, I was able to learn more about the implementation of human rights prosecutions and what they mean in terms of their importance to justice. Sikkink says that there are three dimensions to consider when deciding whether or not to prosecute: the legal, the ethical, and the political. Legally, it is a violation of human rights treaties to allow crimes against human rights to go unpunished. If prosecution is incorporated into domestic law, this can lead to a “norm cascade.” In other words, social and state practices evolve into norms and, eventually, these emerging norms become stable norms within a society. Ethically, society owes victims of human rights violations the right to see justice done.

Politically, whether to prosecute is a question of the quality of democracy. Sikkink believes that there is a measurable impact on the quality of democracy if a country does prosecute violators of human rights. There is a concern that if you push too much for justice, other pressing matters faced by transitioning democracies will be forgotten. According to Sikkink, however, this has not happened; no interruptions in democracy have been seen, but rather the quality of life within those democracies has increased. Furthermore, democracies that have tried justice have improved human rights in other areas as well, as evidenced by the presence of more freedoms and more rights for the people. Sikkink argues that even the worst performing democracy is better than the most efficient dictatorship, and typically segments of a population that supported dictatorship have disappeared when the truth about those years when the dictator was in power came to light. In Argentina, for example, there is great support for trials (80%). This bodes well for the future, and shows a greater understanding of the relationship between accountability and civil society, justice, rule of law, and quality of democracy.

Another major line of questioning that emerged concerned prosecutions in areas of the world such as Asia and the Middle East, where less democratization has occurred. Sikkink says that improving human rights and prosecuting violations won’t be easy – but it’s never easy anywhere. She does believe, however, that it can happen; persistence, external pressure, and legal ingenuity are necessary. There are concerns, however, over going about it the wrong way; in Libya, for example, soldiers that supported Gaddafi were murdered. When something like this occurs, it can serve to discredit a movement. It’s important to remember that justice – not revenge – is the goal in prosecuting human rights violations. Sikkink ended her talk by reminding her audience that prosecutions by themselves are not entirely effective, and that they should be mixed with such things as institutional reform in order to maximize the effect.

Over all, Sikkink’s talk was very interesting because she explained the importance of prosecuting violators of human rights on promoting healthy democracy and creating a global norm. However, her talk only gave an overview of the issue and her findings; I definitely plan to read her book so that I can better understand the matter.