• Ivor Sokolić
Part of the Memory Politics and Transitional Justice book series (MPTJ)


War is traumatic and formative. It creates narratives that define identities of individuals, ethnicities and nations. It affects how people view the world around them. The everyday and emotional Croatian narrative of the Homeland War holds this central role in Croatian society. It reverberates across the social fabric of the nation, and it dynamically interacts with processes of transitional justice. This introductory chapter asks, what effect has the transitional justice process had on narratives related to the conflict? It presents a replicable research design to unpack why war crimes trials struggle to instil human rights narratives in the societies they target. It also outlines the context within which they operated in. The Croatian case study shows that narratives presented from the top-down by courts, domestic or international, face significant obstacles in the context of everyday narratives and that their interaction is more complex than previously thought.


  1. Albrecht, T. L., Johnson, G. M., & Walther, J. B. (1993). Understanding communication processes in focus groups. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 51–64). Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allcock, J. B. (2009). The international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In C. Ingrao & T. A. Emmert (Eds.), Confronting the Yugoslav controversies: A scholars’ initiative (pp. 346–389). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arvind, T., & Stirton, L. (2010). Explaining the reception of the code Napoleon in Germany: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Legal Studies, 30, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, P. (1992). Understanding ethnographic texts. Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avdagić, S. (2010). When are concerted reforms feasible? Explaining the emergence of social pacts in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 628–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertrand, J. T., Brown, J. E., & Ward, V. M. (1992). Techniques for analyzing focus group data. Evaluation Review, 16, 198–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chan, S. (2003). Explaining war termination: A Boolean analysis of causes. Journal of Peace Research, 40, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen, M., & Utas, M. (2008). Mercenaries of democracy: The ‘politricks’ of remobilized combatants in the 2007 general elections, Sierra Leone. African Affairs, 107, 515–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruvellier, T., & Valinas, M. (2006). Croatia: Selected developments in transitional justice. New York: International Center for Transitional Justice.Google Scholar
  11. Das, V. (2001). Remaking a world: Violence, social suffering, and recovery. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drumbl, M. A. (2007). Atrocity, punishment and international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dusa, A., & Thiem, A. (2012). QCA: Qualitative comparative analysis. R package version 3.2.2.Google Scholar
  14. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52, 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox, J. E., & Miller-Idriss, C. (2008). Everyday nationhood. Ethnicities, 8, 536–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geddes, B. (2003). Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Social Research Update, 19. Available at Accessed 02 Jun 2018.
  19. Gibson, J. L. (2006). Can truth reconcile divided nations? In J. D. Meernik & T. David Mason (Eds.), Conflict prevention and peacebuilding in post-war societies: Sustaining the peace (pp. 176–195). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Goldstein, I. (1999). Croatia: A history. London: Hurst.Google Scholar
  21. Halperin, S., & Heath, O. (2012). Political research: Methods and practical skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hollander, J. A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 602–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hug, S. (2013). Qualitative comparative analysis: How inductive use and measurement error lead to problematic inference. Political Analysis, 21, 252–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ICTY Appeals Chamber. (2004). Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, IT-95-14/2-A.Google Scholar
  25. Jović, D. (2009). Croatia after Tudjman: The ICTY and issues of transitional justice. Chaillot Paper, 116, 13–27.Google Scholar
  26. Kempny, M. (2012). Rethinking native anthropology: Migration and auto-ethnography in the post-accession Europe. International Review of Social Research, 2, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004). Explaining government preferences for institutional change in EU foreign and security policy. International Organization, 58, 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krook, M. L. (2010). Women’s representation in parliament: A qualitative comparative analysis. Political Studies, 58, 886–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Landman, T. (2008). Issues and methods in comparative politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. (2002). The rise of competitive authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy, 13, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis, J. (2003). Design issues. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 47–76). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. London, A. (2003). Croatia. In D. Brett (Ed.), Europe review 2003/04: The economic and business report (pp. 70–78). Saffron Walden: Walden Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Maat, E. D. (2011). Sleeping hegemons: Third-party intervention following territorial integrity transgressions. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mauthner, N. S., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37, 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mauthner, N. S., Parry, O., & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). “The data are out there, or are they?” Implications for archiving and revisiting qualitative data. Sociology, 32, 733–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miethe, T., & Drass, K. (1999). Exploring the social context of instrumental and expressive homicides: An application of qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moritz, M., Giblin, J., Ciccone, M., Davis, A., Fuhrman, J., et al. (2011). Social risk-management strategies in pastoral systems: A qualitative comparative analysis. Cross-Cultural Research, 45, 286–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Musheno, M. C., Gregware, P. R., & Drass, K. A. (1991). Court management of AIDS disputes: A sociolegal analysis. Law & Social Inquiry, 16, 737–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nettelfield, L. J. (2010). Courting democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Hague tribunal’s impact in a postwar state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Obradović-Wochnik, J. (2013). Ethnic conflict and war crimes in the Balkans: The narratives of denial in post-conflict Serbia. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  42. Osiel, M. (1998). Mass atrocity, collective memory and the law. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Pavlaković, V. (2010). Croatia, the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and general Gotovina as a political symbol. Europe-Asia Studies, 62, 1707–1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pennings, P. (2003). Beyond dichotomous explanations: Explaining constitutional control of the executive with fuzzy-sets. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ragin, C. C. (1989). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rangelov, I. (2014). Nationalism and the rule of law: Lessons from the Balkans and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Riessman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Rihoux, B. (2006). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. International Sociology, 21, 679–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rooney, E., & Aoláin, F. Ní. (2018). Transitional justice from the margins: Intersections of identities, power and human rights. International Journal of Human Rights, 12, 1–8. Scholar
  50. Söderström, J. (2010). Ex-combatants at the polls: Exploring focus groups and electoral meaning. Anthropology Matters Journal, 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
  51. Soldo, S., Puntarić, D., Petrovićki, Ž., & Prgomet, D. (1999). Injuries caused by antipersonnel mines in Croatian army soldiers on the east Slavonia front during the 1991–1992 war in Croatia. Military Medicine, 164, 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sokolić, I. (2016). Researching norms, narratives and transitional justice: Focus group methodology in post-conflict Croatia. Nationalities Papers, 44, 932–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sokolić, I. (2017). Sources of information on transitional justice in Croatia. Croatian Political Science Review, 53, 77–104.Google Scholar
  54. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Stanley, L. (2016). Using focus groups in political science and international relations. Politics, 36, 236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Subotic, J. (2009). Hijacked justice: Dealing with the past in the Balkans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tanner, M. (2001). Croatia: A nation forged in war. New Haven: Yale Nota Bene.Google Scholar
  59. Teitel, R. G. (2000). Transitional justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Teitel, R. G. (2005). The law and politics of contemporary transitional justice. Cornell International Law Journal, 38, 837–862.Google Scholar
  61. Thiem, A. (2011). Conditions of intergovernmental armaments cooperation in western Europe, 1996–2006. European Political Science Review, 3, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Ginkel, R. (1998). The repatriation of anthropology: Some observations on endo-ethnography. Anthropology & Medicine, 5, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vis, B. (2009). Governments and unpopular social policy reform: Biting the bullet or steering clear? European Journal of Political Research, 48, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Werner, T. (2009). Congressmen of the silent south: The persistence of southern racial liberals, 1949–1964. The Journal of Politics, 71, 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams, L., & Farrell, R. (1990). Legal response to child sexual abuse in day care. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 284–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wodak, R., de Cilia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Živić, D. (2003). Demografske odrednice i posljedice starenja stanovništva Hrvatske [Demographic determinants and consequences of the ageing of Croatia’s population]. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 10, 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivor Sokolić
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations