| The purpose of this dissertation is to understand how international criminal tribunals (ICTs) are received in different contexts. The dissertation is driven by the following puzzle: Why has there often been a negative response to international criminal tribunals (ICTs) in local communities that have been victim to the crimes that these institutions are prosecuting? I examine this puzzle through local responses to the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Serbia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Rwanda. The findings are based on three research trips to each country, including nine consecutive months of fieldwork in Rwanda and six consecutive months of fieldwork in BiH and Serbia, and over 136 successful semi-structured and open-ended interviews with a variety of local actors. My data suggest that the two ad hoc tribunals were not successful at establishing themselves as legitimate and credible mechanisms of transitional justice. The locals in each country believed that they were not the primary beneficiaries of ICTs, and that the ICTs paid insufficient attention to the dynamics between tribunal demands and proceedings, and political events on the ground. My findings show that, first, in each case, local actors in power -- those connected to past regimes who were responsible for the 1990s atrocities, and those who were part of new regimes -- adapted well to the conditions set by ICTs, manipulating the tribunals for their own political goals and influencing the perception of these institutions among the local populations. Second, ICTs had a serious impact on domestic politics, feeding into power struggles between domestic and international actors and between factions on the ground. This outcome had significant implications for political transitions in the three countries, many of which were unintended and contrary to the aims and expectations of the tribunals. |
PDF Full Text Request