Above the Law? A Comparative Study of National Prosecutions of Heads of State

Official polices on the appropriate government response to crimes committed by a head of state are seldom dictated by strict principles of justice. Deciding whether to bring an errant leader to justice is often influenced by political expediency. Given the number of documented cases of official abuse, there is a need to understand why some governments choose to prosecute a former or sitting head of state while others do not. Yet, few studies have been done on this subject. This study reviews 52 cases of heads of state accused of crimes and explores how their own national governments responded to such accusations. Using data culled from various documentary sources, it employs a grounded theory approach to focus on the process that drives the decision to prosecute. Analysis indicates that political legitimacy, perception of threat, political stability, and degree of politicization of the military influence the decision to prosecute. The article concludes with a discussion of the significance and implications of these findings and suggestions for future research.