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

Welcome to the Law and Society Review Blog

The current editors of Law and Society Review have started this blog with the goal of facilitating broader dissemination of socio-legal research. We hope that this blog allows us to discuss scholarship and teaching issues that may not make it to academic journals quickly.  We invite everyone to contribute; we ask all authors to summarize their recent articles. The new blog will also allow us to discuss the changing research environment.  We’d like to hear more people contribute to pressing conversations around research and publishing.  Many of us already have these conversations among smaller groups of scholars. A blog will allow a larger conversation with more participants and, we hope, a greater diversity of views.   

The questions to weigh in on are many.  Professional associations and funding agencies occasion talk about the press for data access in both Europe and North America.  What do you think about this issue, in every dimension from ethical to epistemological t…

LSR Writing Workshop in South Africa

Writing Workshop in Africa
Law & Society Review is co-sponsoring the inaugural Sociolegal Studies Early Career Workshop, held at the University of Cape Town (South Africa), 17-19 August 2017. Financial support is provided by the University of Cape Town and a 2017 Law and Society Association Small Grant award.
Why hold a writing workshop in sociolegal studies in Africa? Responding to a call among members of the Law and Society Association for more research in law and society by scholars living and working in the global South, this workshop is designed for advanced doctoral students and early career faculty in Africa.The workshop is purposefully small, to promote focused discussion, mentoring, and peer networking. The goal is to give a promising group of manuscripts the close attention they deserve from senior scholars and mentors, to help ready those papers for submission and publication.
Six participants and their papers have now been selected for inclusion into the inau…

Workshop for Junior Scholars, University of Cape Town

Convened by Mark Fathi Massoud of the University of California, Santa Cruz (USA), and Kelley Moult and Dee Smythe of the University of Cape Town (South Africa), the first Sociolegal Studies Early Career Scholars Workshop in Africa took place at the Centre for Law and Society, University of Cape Town Faculty of Law, 17-20 August 2017.
The conveners are grateful to the University of Cape Town Faculty of Law (including Dean Penny Andrews and the team at the UCT Centre of Law & Society for hosting the workshop), to the Law and Society Association for a small grant award, to the six mentors and six participants and others who attended the sessions, to Law & Society Review for its co-sponsorship of the workshop, and to the Fulbright specialist program for its support of LSR co-editor Susan Sterett’s visit and participation in all events.
The conveners selected scholars to present their work in a competitive process. Six participants and two alternates came from a range of countries, …