The domestic origins of human rights trials: A case study of the Second Boer War

ABSTRACT

What explains decisions taken by states around the world to prosecute members of their own armed forces for human rights violations? The dominant trend in existing literature suggests that a “justice cascade” best explains the growing prevalence of human rights trials. However, while norm diffusion offers some explanatory power in the contemporary era, other mechanisms are necessary to explain many early human rights trials. Through an analysis of one of the first recorded instances of what we now term “human rights trials” — the court-martials of six British Empire officers for the murder of POWs, civilians, and a missionary in the Second Boer War — this article identifies other crucial mechanisms driving prosecutions that retain relevance in the contemporary era. I find that signaling to domestic audiences, both at “home” and in recently conquered territories, can be critical motivators in elite or government decisions to pursue human rights trials.

Notes on contributor

Alan James (A. J.) Simmons is a PhD candidate in the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University. His research focuses on human rights violations and prosecutions, national identity, public opinion, and elite decision making.

Notes

1. Such as under the banner of universal jurisdiction.

2. It should be noted that the positive impacts of trials are disputed, with some arguing that trials have served to obstruct peace processes and to prevent healing and reconciliation (Meernik et al. 2010; Snyder and Vinjamuri 2003/2004).