📌 The Problem

International criminal courts are frequently given mandates but lack the authority or resources to enforce them. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) achieved compliance not through coercion but by assembling an accountability network that amplified its influence across the region.

📬 How the Court Built Its Accountability Network

The ICTY deliberately developed ties with a range of governmental and nongovernmental actors, using its expertise and institutional position to supply information and to frame a credible accountability architecture. At the same time, the court cultivated contacts so that governments and international organizations would pressure Balkan states to cooperate, effectively outsourcing enforcement.

Key components of this strategy included:

• Diverse partners: national governments, international organizations, and NGOs
• Strategic outputs: informational resources and a public framework that defined accountability
• Pressure channels: mobilizing partners to demand cooperation from Balkan states

📧 What the Correspondence Shows

A newly assembled dataset of ICTY correspondence traces how the court’s outreach unfolded over time. The letters and exchanges document contacts, the flow of information, and explicit requests that enlisted third parties to press for cooperation. These documents reveal the tactical sequence by which the court converted limited formal power into practical leverage.

Main findings from the correspondence include:

• Systematic network-building by the ICTY rather than ad hoc outreach
• Use of expertise and information provision as tools to shape expectations and norms
• Reliance on external actors to translate institutional authority into on-the-ground compliance

🛠️ How the Evidence Was Constructed

• Source: archival correspondence involving the ICTY and a range of state and non-state actors
• Product: a unique dataset that reconstructs the formation and activation of the accountability network
• Purpose: to trace relationships and observable interactions that link court actions to partner responses

🔎 Why It Matters

This case demonstrates that institutions without compulsory enforcement power can nonetheless act strategically to project "productive power" through networks. The findings reshape understandings of international accountability by showing how courts can leverage information, reputation, and partner pressure to achieve compliance—implications relevant for other international tribunals and weakly empowered organizations seeking to enforce norms.