IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v66y2022i9p1650-1675.html

Due Process and Accountability Under Transitional Justice: Evidence from Mosul, Iraq

Author

Listed:
  • Vera Mironova
  • Sam Whitt

Abstract

Do citizens care about due process rights when holding insurgent groups accountable for violence? We examine public perceptions of justice and fairness in judicial proceedings brought against suspected Islamic State (ISIS) militants and their supporters in Mosul, Iraq. We conducted a survey of Mosul residents and people in ISIS-affiliated displacement camps outside Mosul to evaluate public support for detainee due process rights. Using a trial and punishment survey experiment, we find that Mosul residents, while favoring capital punishment for ISIS involvement, are also sensitive to procedural due process rights of the accused. People with self-reported ISIS affiliations, in contrast, are more concerned with substantive due process, and do not see capital punishment outcomes as fair, regardless of procedural considerations. Although rebel group sympathizers and opponents have clashing perspectives on what constitutes equitable punishment for participation in insurgency, both recognize the importance of due process rights to long-term peace and security.

Suggested Citation

  • Vera Mironova & Sam Whitt, 2022. "Due Process and Accountability Under Transitional Justice: Evidence from Mosul, Iraq," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(9), pages 1650-1675, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:66:y:2022:i:9:p:1650-1675
    DOI: 10.1177/00220027221093401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027221093401
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00220027221093401?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James L. Gibson, 2004. "Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 201-217, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sarah Zukerman Daly, 2018. "Determinants of ex-combatants’ attitudes toward transitional justice in Colombia," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(6), pages 656-673, November.
    2. Michael Reed H. & Camilo Umaña H., 2020. "La búsqueda de la verdad: laberintos, ilusiones y expectativas," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1172.
    3. Sarah Zukerman Daly, 2016. "Determinants of former combatants’ attitudes toward transitional justice," HiCN Working Papers 235, Households in Conflict Network.
    4. Jennifer Cyr, 2016. "The Pitfalls and Promise of Focus Groups as a Data Collection Method," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(2), pages 231-259, May.
    5. Jun Gu & Annika Mueller & Ingrid Nielsen & Jason Shachat & Russell Smyth, 2015. "An experimental study of contact effects and their persistence on Malawian shopkeepers’ willingness to spend future time with their Chinese counterparts," Monash Economics Working Papers 04-15, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    6. Krampe, Florian & Hegazi, Farah & VanDeveer, Stacy D., 2021. "Sustaining peace through better resource governance: Three potential mechanisms for environmental peacebuilding," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    7. James Meernik & Diego Esparza & Gustavo Duncan & Clarita Toro & Juan Camilo Gaviria, 2023. "Trust of demobilized combatants: Overcoming fear or becoming familiar?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 315-328, May.
    8. Scacco, Alexandra & Warren, Shana S., 2018. "Can Social Contact Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Nigeria," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 112(3), pages 654-677.
    9. Pearce Edwards, 2021. "Why No Justice for Past Repression? Militaries and Human Rights Organizations in Post-Authoritarian States," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(4), pages 759-787, April.
    10. Felix Haass & Caroline A. Hartzell & Martin Ottmann, 2022. "Citizens in Peace Processes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(9), pages 1547-1561, October.
    11. Karen Brounéus, 2010. "The Trauma of Truth Telling: Effects of Witnessing in the Rwandan Gacaca Courts on Psychological Health," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(3), pages 408-437, June.
    12. Pham, Phuong Ngoc & Vinck, Patrick & Weinstein, Harvey M., 2010. "Human rights, transitional justice, public health and social reconstruction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 98-105, January.
    13. Jennifer Cyr, 2019. "An integrative approach to measurement: focus groups as a survey pretest," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 897-913, March.
    14. Juan Federico Pino Uribe & Johanna Amaya-Panche & Nathalie Méndez Méndez & Andrés Casas Casas, 2026. "Religiosity, Political Tolerance, and Willingness to Reconcile in Post-conflict Contexts: Evidence From Colombia," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 70(2-3), pages 231-260, March.
    15. Jonathan Hall, 2018. "Integration of Refugees and Support for the Ethos of Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(9), pages 2040-2067, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:66:y:2022:i:9:p:1650-1675. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.