Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Gatekeeping versus Allocating in Foreign Assistance: Donor Motivations and Contributions to War Crimes Tribunals
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Gatekeeping versus Allocating in Foreign Assistance: Donor Motivations and Contributions to War Crimes Tribunals
Do you wish to request the book?
Gatekeeping versus Allocating in Foreign Assistance: Donor Motivations and Contributions to War Crimes Tribunals
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Gatekeeping versus Allocating in Foreign Assistance: Donor Motivations and Contributions to War Crimes Tribunals
2007
Overview
We investigate why states provide a voluntary contribution to war crimes tribunals despite the fact that these tribunals are located in states that offer few economic and strategic advantages. We view tribunal financing as a form of foreign assistance and place the funding of tribunals within the broader foreign assistance literature to explain the motivations of donor states. We examine voluntary contributions to four tribunals, and our analysis shows that there are differences between the gatekeeper stage and the secondary decision to allocate assistance. However, donors generally make no distinction among tribunals for purposes of foreign assistance. As a consequence, purely voluntarily funded tribunals are at a disadvantage, since they are not seen by states as unique and requiring special consideration. Ultimately, the lack of funding calls into question the ability of these tribunals to provide justice to victims as well as serve as a mechanism for national reconciliation.
