International judicial institutions consistently struggle to build diffuse support. This struggle is particularly visible at the International Criminal Court (ICC), which aims to hold leaders accountable for grave atrocity crimes. In situation countries, the push for accountability invites an 'us vs. them' narrative, which frames the ICC as an outsider court set on intruding in sovereign affairs. When the ICC charged political operatives with organizing bloody post-election violence in 2007-8, Kenyan leaders publicly advanced a conspiratorial narrative that the Court is a neocolonial institution biased against Africa. This article uses unique survey data collected throughout Kenya to seek answers to the following question: which citizens are most likely to believe this story that the ICC is politically biased? The psychological approach we advance predicts that people negotiate between collective identities and personal experience when evaluating narratives about the performance of international institutions in their country. Ruling-party supporters, who are also ethnically similar, are far more likely to agree that the ICC is biased against Africans. However, those with a personal experience of post-election violence are much less likely agree that the ICC is biased against Africa, even if they are members of the ethnic groups represented in the ruling coalition. Among other things, this implies that the ICC is more supported by those who have borne the brunt of political violence.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Dutton, Dancy, Aloyo, & Alleblas: Collective Identity, Memories of Violence, and Belief in a Biased International Criminal Court: Evidence from Kenya
Yvonne Dutton (Indiana Univ., Indianapolis - Law), Geoff Dancy (Tulane Univ.), Eamon Aloyo (Leiden Univ.), & Tessa Alleblas have posted Collective Identity, Memories of Violence, and Belief in a Biased International Criminal Court: Evidence from Kenya. Here's the abstract: