Kimi Lynn King

The Supreme Court and the Powers of the Executive: The Adudication of F oreign Policy

Few substantive areas have merited as little empirical scrutiny as the Supreme Courts decisions on the conduct of United States foreign policy Many scholars have seemingly accepted as axiomatic that Court decisions on foreign policy have been rare and almost always supportive of the President. We challenge these twin assumptions and demonstrate that the Supreme Court has repeatedly issued decisions on the substance and process of American foreign policy, and that while generally supportive of the executive branch, the High Court has often ruled against it. Moreover, we model the outcomes of these decisions emphasizing the importance of the constitutional basis of laws and issues raised in judicial decision-making. We find that the executive branch is least likely to be supported when a case involved civil liberties, and when the executive powers claimed by the President were neither expressly permitted nor prohibited by the Constitution. The executive branch is more likely to emerge victorious when the case involved the supremacy of federal over state law, foreign actors, or the Presidents constitutional powers.

A psychological jurisprudence model of public opinion and international prosecution

Theories abound as to why states consent to international courts, but little research has examined how individuals decide which justice options—local trials, international trials or other transitional justice options—are the preferred venue for settling violations of international law. We demonstrate that not only do individuals hold organized and fairly sophisticated beliefs on these topics, but we can also successfully import a psychological jurisprudence model used principally in analyses of individual values regarding domestic laws to explain these beliefs. We develop a multinominal logit model of individual choices regarding their preferred justice option based on their views concerning the morality of war, the extent of their victimization and the perceived competency of international institutions.

Truth, justice, and education: towards reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia

Abstract Key to the success of peacebuilding and social reconstruction in the former Yugoslavia are the attitudes of these young people. Our goal in this paper is to explore young people’s attitudes about the prospects of reconciliation vis-a-vis those with whom their nations were formerly at war. In particular, we examine three sets of factors. First, we contend that the level of contact among people engendered by the segregated educational systems affects the attitudes of the young about the possibility of reconciliation. We suggest that those who are able to interact more frequently with fellow students from other ethnic groups will be more likely to believe in the possibility of reconciliation. Second, we contend that attitudes of young people about which ethnic groups were responsible for the violence in the former Yugoslavia and the efforts of the international community to bring truth and justice will strongly influence attitudes. Finally, we examine other factors such as education and the influence of gender on reconciliation.

The Burden of Bearing Witness: The Impact of Testifying at War Crimes Tribunals

Intersections exist regarding how institutions and individuals respond in the wake of mass violence, and we explore one theoretical perspective: resilience—the ability to overcome in the face of adversity. By controlling for the institutional context, we analyze the microlevel impact of testifying on witnesses who testify. New survey data provide information from 300 prosecution, defence, and Chambers witnesses who appeared at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We test propositions about resilience related to trauma, motivations, contributions to justice, fair treatment, witness fatigue, and human security. Witnesses who experienced greater trauma, who were more highly motivated, who believed they contributed to justice, and who were satisfied with their current situation were more positive about testifying. Those who believed they were treated fairly by prosecution and defence were less negative. The findings add to the debate about the burden of bearing witness in post-conflict societies and why some overcome adverse experiences related to mass violence.

The Internet and College Students' Motivation to Vote

As a new national election cycle begins, looking at voters’ motivation becomes the forefront of thought among politicians. This research investigates the impact of the political information available on-line on college students’ motivation to vote. The results illustrate that not only politicians, but educators should be cognizant of this civic engagement process. Schools and teachers of all levels are one the front lines of the battle to create a more informed, more involved citizenry; higher education has a strong influence on motivation to vote. Though speculation abounds regarding the information age, new access to information via technology simply does not have the impact that many, especially in the media would like to imagine. In reality, it is the educator that has the largest role in predicting college students’ motivation to vote.