Description
Abstract
In certain Middle Eastern ethnic communities, specific cultural practices serve as customary mechanisms for resolving disputes, often resulting in compensation marriages. While existing literature widely presents these practices as expressions of restorative justice rooted in local traditions, this study critically evaluates their alignment with contemporary restorative justice principles, with particular emphasis on women’s human rights. The study employs a secondary analysis approach, drawing on quantitative data (self-immolation statistics) and qualitative data (previously published interviews) to examine consent, reparation, and social reconciliation within these rituals. Using Émile Durkheim’s distinction between punitive and restitutive social control as a sociological lens to contextualise tribal social structures, the analysis evaluates claims that compensation marriages are pacifist practices that restore social bonds. The findings are then assessed against the normative principles of restorative justice as defined in international instruments. Results show that compensation marriages undermine free, informed consent, reinforce gender inequality, correlate with women’s self-immolation, and involve informal institutions that, while reducing litigation costs, fail to meet fair trial standards. The study argues that restorative justice frameworks require cautious application to customary mechanisms and that many practices regarded as “restorative” may not, upon closer scrutiny, comply with internationally accepted restorative justice principles. This research contributes to restorative justice scholarship by demonstrating the importance of critically evaluating customary practices through both sociological and human rights lenses.
Keywords: Compensation marriage; Traditional dispute resolution rituals; Restorative justice; Forced marriage; Women’s human rights; Gender-based discrimination
