Social cues
​how the liberal community legitimizes humanitarian war

This book advances a novel theory of social cues to explain which international institutions can legitimize foreign policy and why. It argues that institutions, depending on the political identities they represent, confer legitimacy by sending cues about whether a policy is socially appropriate and will be viewed positively by peer countries. Applied to the domain of humanitarian wars, the argument implies that the liberal community of countries vis-à-vis NATO can influence citizens and policymakers within democracies, the primary participants of these human rights operations. Original evidence from case studies, historical polls, a survey of policymakers, and nine national polls and survey experiments conducted in the U.S., Japan, and Egypt validate the social cue theory, while refuting alternative arguments relating to burden sharing, legality, regionalism, and rational institutional design. This book provides a novel understanding of institutional legitimacy that challenges conventional arguments about the Security Council’s institutional primacy. It also contributes to debates about multilateralism, humanitarian intervention, and social identity in international politics.

Manuscript currently under review at Cambridge Elements. Draft manuscript available for download here.



This manuscript contains materials from the following working papers

• ​Social Cues by International Organizations: NATO, the Security Council, and Public Support for Humanitarian Intervention Finklestein Paper Award recipient (International Organization Section, International Studies Association) [Paper]
• ​Winning Foreign Approval through International Organizations [Paper]