Universal Jurisdiction (UJ) emerged as a norm in international post-conflict justice after the Nuremberg Trials and is based on the principle that the nature of certain crimes is of greater importance than the nationality of the perpetrator, the location of the crime or any direct connection to the prosecuting state. This paper discusses the spread of UJ, which has been wide-ranging and consistent since the 1950s, and seeks answers to the question – why do some states adopt universal jurisdiction legislation while others do not? Through the novel use of Social Network Analysis (SNA) and application of diffusion theory (specifically emulation), the study tests the hypothesis that liberalist network ties influence a state’s willingness to adopt UJ legislation. This bivariate relationship is tested with a medium-n population of OECD states and the empirical results of the SNA reveal strong support for the hypothesis, findings that are determined to be statistically significant by the Pearson’s Chi-Square test. This study embodies an innovative methodological and theoretical approach to an important international post-conflict justice issue, and draws attention to the obstacles that often stand between victims and survivors of genocide and their day in court. N.B The design of the Social Network Analysis maps and details in some tables mean that this paper is most optimally viewed in colour.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-413297 |
| Date | January 2020 |
| Creators | Dawson, Rebecca |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Institutionen för freds- och konfliktforskning |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds