The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Undue Process: Persecution and Punishment in Autocratic Courts
Open accessAbstract
Why do autocrats hold political trials when outcomes are presumed known from the start? Undue Process examines how autocrats weaponize the judiciary to stay in control. Contrary to conventional wisdom that courts constrain arbitrary power, Shen-Bayh argues that judicial processes can instead be used to legitimize dictatorship and dissuade dissent when power is contested. Focusing on sub-Saharan Africa since independence, Shen-Bayh draws on fine-grained archival data on regime threats and state repression to explain why political trials are often political purges in disguise, providing legal cover for the persecution of regime rivals. This compelling analysis reveals how courts can be used to repress political challengers, institutionalize punishment, and undermine the rule of law. Engaging and illuminating, Undue Process provides new theoretical insights into autocratic judiciaries and will interest political scientists and scholars studying authoritarian regimes, African politics, and political control.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Albertus and Menaldo (2012); Gandhi (2008); Ginsburg and Simpser (2013); Slater (2010); Wright (2008).https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009197151.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press · DOI
- Leber, A. and Carothers, C. (2017, November 15).Is the Saudi Purge Really About Corruption?Lessons From China.Foreign Affairs.https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ china/2017-11-15/saudi-purge-really-about-corruption https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009197151.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press · DOI
- Ding and Javed (2021); Ginsburg and Moustafa (2008); Helmke (2004); Massoud (2013); Moustafa (2007); Pereira (2005); Wang (2014).https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009197151.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press · DOI
- Kirchheimer (1960).https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009197151.002 Published online by Cambridge University Press · DOI
Cited by
Hassan, M., Mattingly, D., & Nugent, E. R. (2022) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-013321 · Cited by 113
Authoritarian Power Sharing: Concepts, Mechanisms, and Strategies
Meng, A., Paine, J., & Powell, R. (2022) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-052121-020406 · Cited by 103
The Law or the Career? Autocratic Judiciaries, Strategic Sentencing, and Political Repression
Liu, H., Su, C.-H., & Wang, Y.-T. (2024) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/00104140241290212 · Cited by 5
“By contrast, comparative studies on authoritarian courts have increasingly explored how dependent judiciaries enhance state power within unstable democracies or autocracies (Hou & Truex, 2022; Shen-Bayh, 2022; Wang, 2014).”
Legalizing control: the rise of restrictive internet regulation in sub-Saharan Africa
Schumann, M. P. (2026) · Democratization · doi:10.1080/13510347.2025.2503370 · Cited by 3
Court‐hoarding: Another method of gaming judicial turnover
Leisure, P., & Kosař, D. (2024) · Law & Policy · doi:10.1111/lapo.12238 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Shen-Bayh, F. F.
- Affiliations
- William & Mary (US)
- Corresponding author
- Shen-Bayh, Fiona Feiang
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2022-09-01
- OpenAlex
- W4297687984
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 9.44
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › War, Law, and Justice
- Keywords
- political trials, political purges, authoritarian repression, regime legitimacy, political control, rule of law, sub-Saharan Africa, state repression
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
