The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 24 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Deterrence, Democracy, and the Pursuit of International Justice
Open accessAbstract
In recent years the efforts to hold the perpetrators of mass atrocities accountable have become increasingly normalized, and building capacity in this area has become central to the strategies of numerous advocacy groups, international organizations, and governments engaged in rebuilding and reconstructing states. The indictment of sitting heads of state and rebel leaders engaged in ongoing conflicts, however, has been more exceptional than normal, but is nonetheless radically altering how we think about, debate, and practice justice. While a principled commitment continues to underpin advocacy for justice, several court documents and high-profile reports by leading advocacy organizations stress the capacity of international justice to deliver peace, the rule of law, and stability to transitional states. Such an approach presents a stark contrast to rationales for prosecution that claim that there is a moral obligation or a legal duty to prosecute the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Instead, recent arguments have emphasized the instrumental purposes of justice, essentially recasting justice as a tool of peacebuilding and encouraging proponents and critics alike to evaluate justice on the basis of its effects. Rationales that stress the results that international justice can help deliver have raised the expectations of proponents and skeptics alike and also encouraged further empirical study of the effects of justice. While these studies may not produce a consensus, they offer the prospect that justice strategies can be adapted based on careful research to be more effective. A focus on pragmatism does not mean abandoning the principled commitment to international justice, but it may mean deferring justice until conflict is resolved.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 24 Not checked · 75 Own results and interpretations
In the paper
“The most prominent arguments in international policy debates and advocacy campaigns about justice have stressed its effects on two types of outcomes: deterrence and peace, and democracy and the rule of law.9”
§ Deterrence, Democracy, and the Pursuit of International Justice > Arguing for Justice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9] 9. Kim and Sikkink, ''Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions''; Tricia Olsen, Leigh Payne, and Andrew G. Reiter, Transitional Justice in Balance: Comparing Processes, Weighing Efficacy (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, forthcoming);
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By the late 1990s this latter argument had become far more central in the advocacy for justice.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This shift has since become entrenched with the International Criminal Court's (ICC) indictments of leaders and rebels in Sudan and Uganda.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Deterrence emerged as a central justification for pursuing investigations during the war in the Balkans.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Proponents of justice, tribunals seeking to pursue it, and those who are evaluating its contributions have converged on a set of criteria for evaluating the work of international justice that emphasizes deterrence, peace, and the rule of law.7”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [7] 7. Orentlicher, ''Shrinking the Space for Denial.'' 32 For an excellent review of much of the research that attempts to evaluate the effects of transitional justice, see Thomas, Ron, and Paris, ''The Effects of Transitional Justice Mechanisms.'' For a recent study of the factors associated with transitional justice, see Laurel E. Fletcher, Harvey M. Weinstein, and Jamie Rowen, ''Context, Timing and the Dynamics of Transitional Justice: A Historical Perspective,'' Human Rights Quarterly 31, no. 1 (2009), pp. 163-220.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
49 more claims
Create a free account to see all 99 claims and to verify the 1 reference still open.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 37
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [7]7. Orentlicher, ''Shrinking the Space for Denial.'' 32 For an excellent review of much of the research that attempts to evaluate the effects of transitional justice, see Thomas, Ron, and Paris, ''The Effects of Transitional Justice Mechanisms.'' For a recent study of the factors associated with transitional justice, see Laurel E. Fletcher, Harvey M. Weinstein, and Jamie Rowen, ''Context, Timing and the Dynamics of Transitional Justice: A Historical Perspective,'' Human Rights Quarterly 31, no. 1 (2009), pp. 163-220.
- [8]8. Human Rights Watch, ''Selling Justice Short.'' 34 Orentlicher, ''Shrinking the Space for Denial,'' p. 16. 35 Sikkink and Walling, ''The Impact of Human Rights Trials in Latin America,'' pp. 427-45;
- [9]9. Kim and Sikkink, ''Explaining the Deterrence Effect of Human Rights Prosecutions''; Tricia Olsen, Leigh Payne, and Andrew G. Reiter, Transitional Justice in Balance: Comparing Processes, Weighing Efficacy (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, forthcoming);
- [10]10. Tricia Olsen, Leigh Payne, and Andrew G. Reiter, ''The Justice Balance: When Transitional Justice Improves Human Rights and Democracy,'' Human Rights Quarterly 32, no. 4 (forthcoming); Helga Malmin Binningsbø, Jon Elster & Scott Gates, ''Civil War and Transitional Justice, 1946-2003: A Dataset'' (paper presented to the workshop ''Transitional Justice in the Settlement of Conflicts and Kidnapping,'' Bogotá, Colombia, October 18-19, 2005); available at www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/helga.binningsbo/card/Binningsbo Elster Gates131005.pdf (acc- essed January 31, 2010); and Tove Grete Lie, Helga Malmin Binningsbø & Scott Gates, ''Post-Conflict Justice and Sustainable Peace'' (Post-conflict Transitions Working Paper No. 5, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4191, 2007).
- [11]11. Thomas, Ron, and Paris, ''The Effects of Transitional Justice Mechanisms.'' Others note that since 1945, wars that have been followed by sustained peace have more often than not achieved these results in the absence of accountability. Leslie Vinjamuri, ''Is Accountability Necessary for Sustained Peace?'' (presented at the conference ''Pursuing Justice in Ongoing Conflict: Examining the Challenges,'' Wilton Park, December 2008).
- [15]15. Tricia D. Olsen, Leigh A. Payne, and Andrew G. Reiter, ''Transitional Justice in the World, 1970-2007: Insights from a New Dataset,'' Journal of Peace Research 47, no. 6 (forthcoming). On trends in amnesties, see Louise Mallinder, Amnesty, Human Rights and Political Transitions: Bridging the Peace and Justice Divide (Portland, Ore.: Hart Publishing, 2008). See also Mark Freeman, Necessary Evils: Amnesties and the Search for Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Cited by
Law and Politics in Transitional Justice
Vinjamuri, L., & Snyder, J. (2015) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-122013-110512 · Cited by 130
Self-citationDistant Justice: The Impact of the International Criminal Court on African Politics
Clark, P. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108576260 · Cited by 181
Culture and Order in World Politics
(2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108754613 · Cited by 82
The Responsibility to Protect and the International Criminal Court: counteracting the crisis
Ainley, K. (2015) · International Affairs · doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12185 · Cited by 77
Intermediary Complexity in Regulatory Governance
(2017) · doi:10.1177/0002716217696085 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Vinjamuri, L.
- Corresponding author
- Vinjamuri, Leslie
- Venue
- Ethics & International Affairs
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 191-211
- ISSN
- 0892-6794 (ISSN-L)
- 1747-7093
- OpenAlex
- W2019756626
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 16.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Ethics & International Affairs (publishedVersion)
- SOAS Research Online (SOAS University of London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Law and Human Rights
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › War, Law, and Justice
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Peace and Security Dynamics
- Keywords
- international justice, deterrence, democracy, mass atrocities, prosecution of heads of state, transitional justice, peacebuilding, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, state reconstruction, rule of law
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deterrence, Democracy, and the Pursuit of International Justice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00256.x
- The paper
- Vinjamuri, L. (2010). Deterrence, Democracy, and the Pursuit of International Justice. Ethics & International Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2010.00256.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
