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.
BrattonM (2011) Violence, partisanship and transitional justice in Zimbabwe. Journal of Modern African Studies49: 353–380.
2.
BrouneusK (2010) The trauma of truth telling: Effects of witnessing in the Rwandan Gacaca Courts on psychological health. Journal of Conflict Resolution54: 408–437.
3.
BrownmillerS (1975) Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.
4.
CasselD (2001) Does international human rights law make a difference?Chicago Journal of International Law2: 121.
5.
ClarkJN (2009) The limits of retributive justice: Findings of an empirical study in Bosnia and Hercegovina. Journal of International Criminal Justice7: 463–487.
6.
DarleyJFuleroSHaneyCTylerT (2002) Psychological jurisprudence: Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century. In: OgloffJ (ed.) Taking Psychology and Law into the Twenty-First Century. New York: Kluwer Academic.
7.
deGuzmanM (2012) Choosing to prosecute: Expressive selection at the International Criminal Court. Michigan Journal of International Law33: 265.
8.
DoubtK (2007) Scapegoating and the simulation of mechanical solidarity in former Yugoslavia: “Ethnic cleansing” and the Serbian Orthodox Church. Humanity and Society31(1): 65–82.
9.
DownesGWRockeDBarsoomPN (1996) Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation. International Organization50(Summer): 379–406.
10.
DrumblMA (2007) Atrocity, Punishment and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ElcherothG (2006) Individual-level and community effects of war trauma on social representations related to humanitarian law. European Journal of Social Psychology36: 907–930.
12.
ElcherothGSpiniD (2009) Public support for prosecution of human rights violations in the former yugoslavia. Peace and Conflict15: 189–214.
13.
FordS (2012) A social psychology model of the perceived legitimacy of International Criminal Courts: Implications for the success of transitional justice mechanisms. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law45: 405
14.
GellesRJStrausMA (1988) Intimate Violence. New York: Simon & Schuster.
15.
GibsonJL (2008) Group identities and theories of justice: An experimental investigation into the justice and injustice of land squatting in South Africa. The Journal of Politics70(3): 700–716.
16.
GibsonJL (2009) On legitimacy theory and the effectiveness of truth commissions. Law and Contemporary Problems72(2): 123–141.
17.
GibsonJLSonisJHeanS (2010) Cambodians’ support for the rule of law on the eve of the Khmer Rouge trials. The International Journal of Transitional Justice4: 377–396.
18.
GoodliffeJHawkinsDG (2006) Explaining commitment: States and the Convention against Torture. Journal of Politics68: 358–371.
19.
HathawayOA (2007) Why do countries commit to human rights treaties?Journal of Conflict Resolution51: 588–621.
20.
HathawayOA (2002) Do human rights treaties make a difference?Yale Law Journal111: 1935–2041.
21.
HelferLRSlaughterA-M (1997) Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law Journal107: 273–328.
22.
HelferLRSlaughterA-M (2005) Why states create international tribunals: A response to Professors Posner and Yoo. California Law Review93: 899.
23.
HenryN (2009) Witness to rape: The limits and potential of international war crimes trials for victims of wartime sexual violence. International Journal of Transitional Justice3(1), 114–134.
24.
HenryN (2010) The impossibility of bearing witness: Wartime rape and the promise of justice. Violence Against Women16(10): 1098–1119.
25.
HenryN (2011) War and Rape: Law, Memory and Justice. London: Routledge.
26.
IvkovicSHaganJ (2006) The politics of punishment and the siege of Sarajevo. Law and Society Review40: 369–410.
27.
JoHSimmonsB (2012) Peace, justice and the International Criminal Court: A preliminary assessment of the ICC’s impact. Presented at the2012 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 1–4April, San Diego, CA.
28.
KelleyJ (2007) Who keeps international commitments and why? The International Criminal Court and bilateral non-surrender agreements. American Political Science Review101(3): 573–589.
29.
KelsallT (2009) Culture Under Cross Examination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
KingKMeernikJ (2011) A distant court: Assessing the impact of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (with Prof. Kimi King, University of North Texas). In: SluiterGSwartBZaharA (eds) The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
KuJNzelibeJ (2006) Do international criminal tribunals deter or exacerbate humanitarian atrocities?Washington University Law Review84: 777–833.
32.
KupchanCAKupchanCA (1991) Concerts, collective security and the future of Europe. International Security16(1): 114–161.
33.
MacCounRJ (1993) Drugs and the law: A psychological analysis of drug prohibition. Psychological Bulletin113: 497–512.
34.
MeernikJ (2005) Justice or peace: How the International Criminal Tribunal affects societal peace in Bosnia. Journal of Peace Research42: 271–290.
35.
MilnerHV (1997) Interests Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
MohanMSathisanV (2011) Erasing the non-judicial narrative: Victim testimonies at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Jindal Global Law Review2: 37–134.
37.
MorgenthauHJ (1973) Politics Among Nations, 5th edn.New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
38.
MorrowJD (2007) When do states follow the laws of war?American Political Science Review101: 559–572.
39.
NadlerAMalloyTFisherJD (2008) Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation From Violent Conflict to Peaceful Co-Existence. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
40.
NettelfieldL (2010) Courting Democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
PosnerEYooJ (2005) Judicial independence in international tribunals. California Law Review93: 1.
42.
RobinsonPDarleyJ (1995) Justice, Liability and Blame. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
43.
RyanW (1971) Blaming the Victim. New York: Pantheon Books.
44.
SaxonD (2004) Exporting justice: Perceptions of the ICTY Among the Serbian, Croatian, and Muslim communities in the former Yugoslavia. Journal of Human Rights4: 559–572.
45.
SimmonsBDannerA (2010) Credible commitments and the International Criminal Court. International Organization64: 225–256.
46.
SmithA (2009) After Genocide. New York: Prometheus Books.
47.
SpiniDElcherothGFaselR (2008) The impact of group norms and generalization of risks across groups on judgments of war behavior. Political Psychology29: 919–941.
48.
StoverEWeinsteinH (2004) My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
TylerT (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
50.
TylerTDarleyJ (2000) Building a law-abiding society: Taking public views about morality and the legitimacy of legal authority into account when formulating substantive law. Hofstra Law Review28: 707–739.
51.
WaltzK (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.
52.
WeatherfordMS (1992) Measuring polity legitimacy. American Political Science Review86: 149–166.
53.
YooJPosnerE (2004) A theory of international adjudication. California Law Review93: 1.
54.
ZurO (1994) Rethinking “don’t blame the victim”: Psychology of victimhood. Journal of Couple Therapy4(3–4): 15–36.
