Attitudes toward the Use of Force: Instrumental Imperatives, Moral Principles, and International Law

Dill, Janina; Schubiger, Livia Isabella

doi:10.1111/ajps.12635

Cited by 31 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Morality: Previous research suggests that the public is concerned with the morality of countries’ use of force abroad (Tomz & Weeks, 2020). Dill and Schubiger (2021) show that the public seems to combine normative and instrumental concerns about right and wrong when adjudicating support for the use of force abroad. Drones are thought to exacerbate this tendency because they preserve the immunity of one side in a conflict by consolidating the liability to be harmed entirely within the other side (Renic, 2020).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 97%

Multilateralism and public support for drone strikes

Lushenko

Raman

Kreps

2022

Research & Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of armed drones has emerged as a principal counterterrorism tool for western militaries, especially France and the United States. While France submits its strikes to the United Nations for approval, the United States typically does not. Does this difference matter for public support and perceptions of legitimacy? To better understand these dynamics, we fielded original survey experiments across nationally representative samples in France and the United States totaling in over 1800 respondents. Our results reflect that international approval is associated with both higher public support and greater perceived legitimacy for a strike. Further, we find that respondents emphasize international law as the basis for support and legitimacy, suggesting a cross-national belief in multilateralism for normative rather than strictly instrumental reasons. These relationships are moderated by the identity of the country conducting a hypothetical strike, implying both an “othering” effect and the emergence of distinct models of strikes across countries that deserve more study amid the ongoing proliferation of armed drones. Video Abstract: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YevyaKThae0

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 97%

Multilateralism and public support for drone strikes

Lushenko

Raman

Kreps

2022

Research & Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, the United States was positioned to play a pivotal role in shaping the course of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict from its earliest days 19,20 . Because public opinion exerts an important influence on US foreign policy 21,22 , we attempted to reduce US citizens' support for the Ukrainians committing retributive, conflict-escalating war crimes.…”

Section: Russo-ukrainian Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harnessing Dehumanization Theory, Modern Media, and an Intervention Tournament to Reduce Support for Retributive War Crimes

Landry¹,

Protzko²,

Barr³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dehumanization–denying or overlooking another’s humanity–is a multifaceted phenomenon, and scholars focusing on different forms of dehumanization have reached different conclusions regarding its role in violence. Those conceptualizing dehumanization as the (relatively subtle) denial of another’s mental capacities argue that dehumanization’s role in violence is overstated because perpetrators often recognize their victims possess such capacities. Conversely, those conceptualizing dehumanization as the explicit, blatant denial of another’s humanity argue that dehumanization facilitates violence by stripping others of the moral elevation distinguishing humans from “lower” animals. Study 1 integrated these perspectives to provide a nuanced account of dehumanization’s role in violence. Investigating attitudes toward Russian soldiers following their illegal invasion of Ukraine, we found support for committing reciprocal war crimes to be greatest among Americans who explicitly, blatantly dehumanized the soldiers and attributed them the most mind. This suggests dehumanizers can recognize some aspects of a target’s humanity while denying others. Moreover, we found explicit, blatant dehumanization to be a particularly strong predictor of war-crime support. Therefore, in a nationally-representative sample, Study 2 tested an intervention that reduced Americans’ explicit, blatant dehumanization of Russian soldiers. This led to a downstream reduction in their war-crime support, suggesting that reducing explicit, blatant dehumanization can attenuate extreme violence.

show abstract

“…17 On recent research examining public opinion related to the values of the combatant's trilemma, see e.g. Carpenter & Montgomery (2020); Sagan & Valentino (2018); and Dill & Schubiger (2021). 18 The combatants' trilemma framework is most directly applicable to the instrumental use of force to achieve battlefield objectives; however, it may potentially also apply to opportunistic or genocidal violence, such as cases in which instrumental value is derived from the direct, intentional infliction of violence on civilians.…”

Section: Usma Professional Military Ethics Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 17 On recent research examining public opinion related to the values of the combatant’s trilemma, see e.g. Carpenter & Montgomery (2020); Sagan & Valentino (2018); and Dill & Schubiger (2021). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Combatant socialization and norms of restraint: Examining officer training at the US Military Academy and Army ROTC

Bell

2021

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can armed groups socialize combatants to norms of restraint – in essence, train soldiers to adopt norms of international humanitarian law on the battlefield? How can social scientists accurately measure such socialization? Despite being the central focus of organizational and ideational theories of conflict, studies to date have not engaged in systematic, survey-based examination of this central socialization mechanism theorized to influence military conduct. This study advances scholarly understanding by providing the first comparative, survey-based examination of combatant socialization to norms of restraint, using surveys and interviews with US Army cadets at the US Military Academy (USMA), Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and active duty Army combatants. Additionally, to better understand ‘restraint’ from combatants’ perspective, this study introduces the concept of the ‘combatant’s trilemma’ under which combatants conceptualize civilian protection as part of a costly trade-off with the values of military advantage and force protection. Survey results hold both positive and negative implications for socialization to law of war norms: military socialization can shift combatants’ preferences for battlefield conduct. However, intensive norm socialization may be required to shift combatants’ preferences from force protection to civilian protection norms. Study findings hold significant implications for understanding violence against civilians in conflict and for policies to disseminate civilian protection norms in armed groups worldwide.

show abstract

Attitudes toward the Use of Force: Instrumental Imperatives, Moral Principles, and International Law

Cited by 31 publications

References 52 publications

Multilateralism and public support for drone strikes

Multilateralism and public support for drone strikes

Harnessing Dehumanization Theory, Modern Media, and an Intervention Tournament to Reduce Support for Retributive War Crimes

Combatant socialization and norms of restraint: Examining officer training at the US Military Academy and Army ROTC

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About