Social Cues by International Organizations: NATO, the Security Council, and Public Support for Humanitarian Intervention
SSRN Electronic Journal
2019
- 640Usage
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
This article advances a new theory to explain which international organizations (IOs) affect mass support for war and why. It argues that IOs, depending on the political identities they represent, influence citizens by sending social cues about whether military intervention is normatively appropriate and will be viewed by peer countries in a positive light. Applied to the case of humanitarian intervention, the argument implies that NATO vis-à-vis its liberal identity has a powerful effect on the citizens of democracies, the primary participants of these human rights operations. Original evidence from five survey experiments conducted in the United States and Japan, validated by observational data, support the social cue argument. NATO and the liberal community raises domestic and foreign support for intervention by sending social cues, and this effect exist independently of the UN Security Council, an IO that is heterogeneous, conservative, an “elite pact,” and has the authority to legalize war. The evidence also rules out alternative explanations about burden sharing, political ignorance, NATO’s military strength, NATO’s representation of a western rather than democratic identity, and the U.S.’s unique role in the liberal order. The theory and findings give a new answer the age-old question of why international institutions can legitimize foreign policy, and contributes more broadly to debates about norms and social identity in international politics.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know