Why Do States Adopt Truth Commissions After Transition?
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Hun Joon | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-09-01T10:08:41Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-09-01T10:08:41Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2021-06-19 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019-08 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0038-4941 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/63644 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Objectives Why do states create a truth commission after political transition? This article answers this question by testing three key theories after surveying the existing literature: transnational advocacy networks, the balance of power between old and new elites, and diffusion theory. Methods Cox proportional hazards models were used to explain the adoption of a truth commission. I used the Transitional Justice Database Project database on truth commissions in 71 countries that became democracies between 1980 and 2006. Result Strong evidence supports transnational advocacy networks and diffusion explanations. First, active domestic and international advocacy is a key factor. Second, diffusion theory is supported, as establishing a truth commission in neighboring countries is a relevant factor. Transitional countries are most sensitive to truth commissions adopted in culturally similar countries. Conclusion I found empirical evidence supporting the relevance of diffusion, domestic advocacy groups, and international actors. | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | WILEY | - |
dc.subject | JUSTICE | - |
dc.subject | RECONCILIATION | - |
dc.subject | TRIALS | - |
dc.subject | IMPACT | - |
dc.title | Why Do States Adopt Truth Commissions After Transition? | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | Kim, Hun Joon | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/ssqu.12646 | - |
dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85064603271 | - |
dc.identifier.wosid | 000476569200001 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, v.100, no.5, pp.1485 - 1502 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY | - |
dc.citation.title | SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY | - |
dc.citation.volume | 100 | - |
dc.citation.number | 5 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 1485 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 1502 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.type.docType | Article | - |
dc.description.journalClass | 1 | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | ssci | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Government & Law | - |
dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Sociology | - |
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Political Science | - |
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Sociology | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | JUSTICE | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | RECONCILIATION | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | TRIALS | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | IMPACT | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
(02841) 서울특별시 성북구 안암로 14502-3290-1114
COPYRIGHT © 2021 Korea University. All Rights Reserved.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.