Dataset of Non-domestic Reparation Claims for Gross Violations of Human Rights

• In Event: Poster Session: Politics and History & International History and Politics
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: International History and Politics

Abstract

Max Goetz, Ph.D. Candidate, Conflict Management and Mediation, Tel Aviv University

The dataset constitutes the groundwork for the Ph.D. research project on "Non-Domestic Reparations for Gross Violations of Human Rights in Comparative Perspective". Whereas the research project aims to set up a database comprising all non-domestic reparation claims, the individual papers will focus each on a specific context such as post-colonial claims for atonement. Using a sample of 57 cases, the dataset unravels the variables entailing the rarity of sincere acknowledgment and successful claims in non-domestic claims processes.
The 1952 Luxembourg Agreement between Germany, Israel, and the JCC constitutes a paradigm shift in history toward the emergence of a norm of reparations. It changed the conceptualization of reparations from victor-imposed war compensations to moral expectations for atonement. The diffusion of Transitional Justice (TJ) instruments with the waves of democratization in South America and post-Cold War Eastern Europe, alongside the 2005 UN "Basic Principles and Guidelines" institutionalized these expectations. This significant rise of various TJ norms and practices, evident from the 1990s on, set the backdrop for a similar increase of non-domestic reparation claims. Alongside the domestic successes, an international norm of reparations became part of the TJ regime of accountability. However, despite the growing expectations, successful international cases remain the outlier.
Literature usually focuses on domestic reparation movements and the few successful international agreements. Thereby leading to a biased understanding of the extent of their success. Correspondingly, the few accessible databases focus on other Transitional Justice instruments, domestic cases, or international agreements. This dataset aims to fill the significant gap in large-n comparative studies on non-domestic claims processes.
The study employs an innovative three-step model to theorize victim claiming, government acknowledgment, and negotiations on remedies. The hypothesis indicates that defendant states try to avoid crossing a threshold of acknowledgment to not induce liability. The relative success and the diffusion of norms we see in other areas of Transitional Justice therefore does not coherently lead to agreements on reparations. Common predictors for domestic reparations cases differ significantly from explanatory variables of non-domestic cases. The proposed variables comprise individual, societal, and structural factors. The study emphasizes norms strength, economic interdependency, security considerations, level of democracy, public opinion, and application of the term “Genocide”, as well as the impact of global ruptures.
The dataset will combine a variety of sources and coding mechanisms. Data from databanks such as the Democracy Index, Fragile States Index, or the World Bank will be included directly. Qualitative data on the cases will be extracted from scientific papers and reliable newspapers. Whenever possible, the original source of information will be traced and included. Agreements, judgments, or other official documents will correspondingly be integrated into the original version. An estimated number of at least five sources per case is envisioned. The coding process will be conducted with the help of the software Atlas.ti.
The 57 cases are categorized based on the types of abuses. The four proposed major categories are World War Two and the Shoah, Colonialism, Slavery, and post-war and Genocide. It is necessary to disaggregate the types of atrocities and reasons for claims.
A set of refraining factors such as setting a precedent and particular domestic public opinion keeps defendants’ incentives to acknowledge responsibility for historical injustices low. It is to be expected that the success of non-domestic claims will remain rare and will not become a strong international norm soon. The dataset will show diverging explanations for the victims’ motivation to initiate a claim and the defendants’ reaction to it.
The study underscores the necessity of large-n comparative research to fill the gap in understanding the complexities of non-domestic reparations claims, contributing valuable insights to the field of post-colonial atonement as well as Transitional Justice as such. The complete dataset will furthermore shed light on the complex processes of post-conflict politics, rapprochement, and reconciliation.

Author

• Max Goetz, Tel Aviv University