Affiliation:
1. Council on Foreign Relations, New York, NY, USA
2. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles, also known as drones, have become a central feature of American foreign policy, with over 400 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen in the last decade. Despite criticisms that have arisen about ethics and legality of this policy, polls have registered high levels of public support for drone strikes. This article shows that the standard formulation of poll questions takes as a given the government’s controversial claims about combatant status and source of legal authorization. I conduct a survey experiment that evaluates how varying the terms of the debate –in particular whether the strikes are compatible with international humanitarian law (IHL) and have legal authorization – affects public support for the drone policy. Treatments that incorporated contested assumptions about IHL meaningfully decreased public support while the public was less moved by questions about domestic or international legal authorization.
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science
Reference29 articles.
1. AP 1 (1977) Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Convention, 1977. Part IV: Civilian Population and Article 57. Geneva: ICRC.
2. Promises or Policies? An Experimental Analysis of International Agreements and Audience Reactions
Cited by
44 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献