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

• Author: Vera Mironova,Sam Whitt
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221093401
• Published date: 01 October 2022
• Date: 01 October 2022
• Subject Matter: Special Feature Articles

Special Feature Article

Journal of Conf‌lict Resolution

2022, Vol. 66(9) 1650–1675

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00220027221093401

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

Due Process and

Accountability Under

Transitional Justice: Evidence

from Mosul, Iraq

Vera Mironova

1

and Sam Whitt

2



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 pro-

ceedings 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.

Keywords

due process, transitional justice, insurgency, terrorism, Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), Iraq,

survey experiment

1

Non-Resident Fellow, Middle East Institute, Washington DC, USA

2

Department of Political Science, One University Parkway, High Point University, NC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Sam Whitt, Department of Political Science, One University Parkway, High Point University, High Point, NC

27262, USA.

Email: swhitt@highpoint.edu

Even if states are successful in vanquishing insurgencies on the battlef‌ield, they still

face a key dilemma surrounding the treatment of rebel group f‌ighters and supporters.

On one hand, there may be strong public pressure to exact vengeance against brutal

insurgent forces for the suffering they inf‌licted on local populations. At the same time,

excessive retribution against former insurgents might trigger blowback in the form of

remobilization, prolonging conf‌lict. But just how vengeful are publics really and what

are the implications for the peace process? Our research raises questions about the

relationship between ordinary citizens and transitional justice approaches in post-

conf‌lict environments. We ask what legal rights and protections, if any, do publics

reserve to those accused of rebel group and/or terrorist involvement?

Using a survey experiment involving the trial and conviction of a hypothetical

Islamic State (ISIS) informant in Mosul, Iraq, we consider whether ordinary Mosul

residents, many of whom suffered under ISIS rule, show any concern for the rule of law

in the treatment of suspected ISIS supporters. Specif‌ically, we evaluate whether publics

support procedural and substantive due process rights for suspected terrorists and

insurgent detainees. Based on a survey of approximately 400 Mosul residents and

200 people with ISIS aff‌iliations in displacement camps, we f‌ind that Mosul residents

are sensitive to procedural due process rights in the prosecution of ISIS detainees.

While Mosul residents favor capital punishment for ISIS followers, they are less likely

to see death penalty outcomes as just or fair when detainee due process rights are

violated. People with ISIS aff‌iliations in displacement camps, in contrast, regard capital

punishment as a substantively unjust and unfair outcome, regardless of whether

procedural due process is adhered to. We also f‌ind that trust and conf‌idence in the

judiciary and beliefs about the eff‌icacy of negotiating with insurgents likely inf‌luence

public evaluations of procedural justice and substantive outcomes.

Our results underscore the need for greater public awareness and involvement in the

transitional justice process. We reveal how many ordinary civilians, as well as those

with acknowledged rebel group aff‌iliations, regard basic due process protections as

important to demobilizing insurgents and building lasting peace. Even in an extreme

case, with a group as notoriously brutal as ISIS, we f‌ind public opposition to violations

of due process rights. We interpret this as a positive sign for how societal norms about

justice could reinforce institutional commitment to the rule of law. An informed,

empowered public could help ensure judicial accountability, preventing the transitional

justice process from degrading into a campaign of revenge that often drives people back

into insurgency.

Public Opinion on Insurgent Rights

While much research has focused on the legal rights of accused insurgents and terrorists

within various criminal justice systems

1

, less attention has been paid to public per-

ceptions of those rights. Although rebel combatants have been brought to justice before

international war crimes tribunals in some select cases of inter-state and civil conf‌lict,

many states often prefer to try combatants under domestic military commissions or

Mironova and Whitt 1651