A psychological jurisprudence model of public opinion and international prosecution. (March 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Meernik, James; King, Kimi
• Is Part Of: International area studies review. Volume 17:Number 1(2014:Mar.)
• Page Start: 3
• Page End: 20
• Publication Date: 2014-03
• Subjects: Conflict -- human rights -- international justice -- public opinion -- retribution; Area studies -- Periodicals; Area studies -- Korea (South) -- Periodicals; International economic relations -- Periodicals; Globalization -- Economic aspects -- Periodicals; Globalization -- Periodicals; World politics -- Periodicals; 337.05
• DOI: 10.1177/2233865913515449
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2233-8659

Abstract

Theories abound as to why states consent to international courts, but little research has examined how individuals decide which justice options—local trials, international trials or other transitional justice options—are the preferred venue for settling violations of international law. We demonstrate that not only do individuals hold organized and fairly sophisticated beliefs on these topics, but we can also successfully import a psychological jurisprudence model used principally in analyses of individual values regarding domestic laws to explain these beliefs. We develop a multinominal logit model of individual choices regarding their preferred justice option based on their views concerning the morality of war, the extent of their victimization and the perceived competency of international institutions.