Civilian Harm and Military Legitimacy: Evidence from the Battle of Mosul

Authors

Benjamin Krick
Jonathan Petkun, Duke Law SchoolFollow
Mara R. Revkin, Duke Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2025

Keywords

civil war, conflict, counterinsurgency, civilian harm, international humanitarian law, civil-military relations, Iraq, legitimacy

Abstract

The legitimacy of armed forces in the eyes of civilians is increasingly recognized as crucial not only for battlefield effectiveness but also for conflict resolution and peace building. However, the concept of “military legitimacy” remains under-theorized and its determinants poorly understood. We argue that perceptions of military legitimacy are shaped by two key dimensions of warfare: just cause and just conduct. Leveraging naturally occurring variation during one of the deadliest urban battles in recent history—the multinational campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq—we evaluate our theory using a mixed-methods design that combines original survey data, satellite imagery, and interviews. Civilians living in neighborhoods where armed forces were less careful to protect civilians view those forces as less legitimate than civilians elsewhere. Surprisingly, these results persist after conditioning on personal experiences of harm, suggesting that perceptions are influenced not only by victimization—consistent with previous studies—but also by beliefs about the morality of armed forces’ conduct and the cause for which they are fighting.

Citation

Benjamin Krick et al., Civilian Harm and Military Legitimacy: Evidence from the Battle of Mosul, 79 International Organization 332-357 (2025)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.