Skip to main content

Can Judges be Impartial in a Deeply Divided Society?


Alex Schwartz
Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong

Melanie Murchison
Center for Law, Society and Justice, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Constitutional courts can play an important role in protecting minority rights and providing a forum for the non-violent resolution of constitutional disputes. Arguably, this role is especially vital in post-conflict and deeply divided societies. But if the politics that divides the society more generally also influences judges, a court’s ability to play this role – at least impartially and independently – will be compromised.  Our recent LSR article, ‘Judicial Impartiality and Independence in Divided Societies’, is the first ever published study to rigorously consider the extent to which ethno-national politics influences judicial decision-making on constitutional courts. 

The article focuses on the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Bosnia-Herzegovina is a post-conflict society, still grappling with the legacy of the war and ethnic cleansing that ravaged the country in the 1990s.  Following the peace agreement that ended the war, a new constitution divided and decentralized power in the country, creating two territorial ‘entities’ and a power-sharing system to accommodate Bosniak, Croat, and Serb factions (the country’s three main ethno-national communities). The Constitutional Court is similarly designed to include two judges from each of these three groups, alongside three ‘foreign’ judges who are there – at least in theory – to provide some impartial expertise.  For most of the Court’s existence, the judges have held long-term mandates (with mandatory retirement at age 70).  For the first 5 years, they were appointed for short and non-renewable mandates.   

The judges have been accused of dividing along ethno-national lines and favouring claims brought by their own group (or, alternatively, displaying bias against claims brought by other groups).  Our study examines if there is an objective basis for these impressions.  With an original dataset of the Court’s decisions, and using a statistical technique called logistic regression, we examine the extent to which the probability of a judge finding in favour of a constitutional challenger significantly increases when both the judge and the challenger are from the same ethno-national community. Accounting for other possible influences, including potential party-political connections between the judge and challenger, we find evidence of a dramatic effect: the judges are over four times more likely to find a constitutional violation when the challenge is brought by a member of their own group.

We also consider if the Court’s move from a short-term tenure model to a long-term tenure model had any effect on the judges’ tendency to side with co-ethnic challengers.  We find that it did not; there is no significant difference between the short-term and long-term appointed judges in this respect.  We argue that this result suggests that the judges’ propensity to favour co-ethnic challengers mostly reflects genuine political and/or group biases, as opposed to a strategic motivation to appease powerful politicians. That being said, we do find some evidence that the length of time a judge serves on the Court makes some difference to this tendency: as time goes on, the judges appear to become more ethnically partial. This effect may reflect a process whereby judges ‘acclimate’ to their role on a divided court over time (evidence for a similar effect has been found on the US Supreme Court).  

Our article concludes by suggesting some ways in which constitutional courts might be designed to reduce the potentially damaging influence of ethnic or ethno-national politics on judicial behavior.  Against the conventional wisdom, we argue that short and non-renewable mandates might be preferable to long-term tenure, at least to the extent that they reduce the potential for judges to become ‘acclimated’ to dividing along ethno-national lines.  We also suggest that the practice of allowing dissenting opinions should probably be avoided in a deeply divided context like Bosnia-Herzegovina; though dissents give judges a way to express themselves (and facilitate the kind of empirical research we conducted for this study), they also draw attention to political divisions and, consequently, undermine a court’s ability to speak with a single authoritative voice.

Popular posts from this blog

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…
Read more

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…
Read more

A Response to Tyler

By Kitty Calavita and Valerie Jenness, University of California, Irvine

We appreciate Tom Tyler’s close read of our article, “It Depends on the Outcome’: Prisoners, Grievances, and Perceptions of Justice,” and his pinpointing of issues of concern to him. We would like to respond here to just a few points.

Most importantly, it is a mischaracterization to say, as Tyler does, that we argue “that perceptions of procedural justice do not matter in the prison context.” As we say in the abstract (“These findings do not refute the importance of procedural justice” [p. 41]) and throughout the paper (e.g., “Nor do we argue that procedural justice is not important to these prisoners” [p. 43]), procedural justice is important. It matters, both as a moral principle and as a concrete reality for people involuntarily interacting with the long arm of the state, whether in a police stop or in a prison cell. The prisoners we interviewed clearly want to be treated fairly and with respect; nevertheless,…
Read more