Suchergebnisse

This paper examines the role of the constellation of interveners, along with the approval of international institutions like the United Nations, on public support for military interventions to protect civilians during war. Concerns over burden sharing and free riding have figured prominently in recent debates over the provision, or lack thereof, of humanitarian interventions. An experiment embedded in a survey of a representative sample of the US public shows that citizens are influenced less by the extent of material contributions from other countries than by whether the United Nations sanctions the mission. Further analysis indicates that the United Nations functions as a legitimating device that can help overcome collective action problems, rather than through alternative approaches emphasizing the signaling of information or ensuring greater military resources. The findings have implications for research on the role of international institutions and the domestic politics of support for the use of force.

Despite the increased emphasis on domestic politics in the study of international law, scholars remain divided about whether and how international law affects domestic institutions. Moreover, while public support is a core ingredient for sustainable, legitimate policies in a democracy, research at the individual level of analysis remains limited. Weighing in on these areas of study, we investigate the use of drone strikes for counterterrorism, a subject of considerable debate. Proponents in the government point to drones as both effective for disrupting terrorist networks and compatible with international law. Critics from groups such as international organizations (IOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) respond that attacks create more terrorists than they kill and violate legal commitments. The central question we ask in this article is whether these international legal criticisms impact public support for drone strikes, the centerpiece of US counterterrorism policy, or whether individuals are more persuaded by effectiveness-based arguments. Employing a survey experiment of a nationally representative sample of the United States, we find IO and NGO criticisms can shape public attitudes even around an important national security issue like drone strikes, but are most influential when messages center on legal critiques rather than matters of effectiveness. Our findings speak to fundamental questions about the domestic politics of international legal commitments, the role of IOs and NGOs in shaping political debates, and the durability of US counterterrorism policy.