Gender, Internal Armed Conflict, and High Court Decision-Making in Transitioning Societies

Abstract

Abstract Building on research that applies the policy deference model to high court decision-making during external war, we propose that conflict intensity, political government's preference on liberalization, and the gender of appellant impact the manner in which courts follow policy deference during internal war in transitioning countries. Contextually, we argue that shifts in women's roles and gender relations during internal conflict in transitioning societies condition the manner in which civilian courts make decisions on civil and political rights cases. During external war in advanced democracies, policy deference infers that courts will rule more conservatively on civil and political rights cases. Using habeas corpus cases as a representation of civil and political rights’ protection from El Salvador's civil war period (1980–1992) and two measures of conflict intensity, our findings indicate that the court's decision-making process deviates from conventional expectations derived from the policy deference model in three ways: (1) conflict intensity solely affects the court's decision-making on habeas corpus cases involving men; (2) the political government's choice for political liberalization affects the court's decision-making on both women and men cases; and (3) gender conditions the manner in which policy deference applies in a society that is experiencing societal change.