Social cues
how the liberal community legitimizes humanitarian war
This book advances a novel theory of social cues to explain how international institutions can legitimize foreign policy. It reframes legitimization as a type of identity politics. It argues that institutions confer legitimacy by sending social cues about whether a policy is socially appropriate and will be viewed positively by peer countries. Their ability to send such cues depends on the identities they represent. 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 opinion polls, a survey of policymakers, and nine original survey and survey experiments conducted in the U.S., Japan, and Egypt validate my theory of social cues while refuting alternative explanations relating to material considerations, regionalism, and international law. This book more generally provides a novel understanding of institutional legitimacy, contrasting with dominant arguments focusing on an institution's legal authority and institutional design. It also contributes to debates about multilateralism, humanitarian intervention, and social identity in international politics.
Draft manuscript available for download here.
This manuscript contains materials from the following working papers
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]
- Information Transmission by International Organizations: A Reassessment [Paper]