A psychological jurisprudence model of public opinion and international prosecution

James Meernik and Kimi King
Additional contact information
James Meernik: University of North Texas, USA
Kimi King: University of North Texas, USA

International Area Studies Review, 2014, vol. 17, issue 1, 3-20

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.

Keywords: Conflict; human rights; international justice; public opinion; retribution (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2233865913515449 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:intare:v:17:y:2014:i:1:p:3-20

DOI: 10.1177/2233865913515449

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in International Area Studies Review from Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().