American Public Opinion on International Courts and Tribunals

Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819759.003

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, when asked whether “attacks by Palestinians on Israeli Civilians” are justified, 41% of Iranians said they were “never justified” compared to 80% of American respondents. Clearly, the abstract question about generalized attacks on civilians does not characterize individual support for this kind of violence (Kull 2007).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Supports Suicide Terrorism in Bangladesh? What the Data Say

Fair

Hamza

Heller

2017

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bangladesh, one of the world's largest Muslim countries, is generally viewed as a success story with a strong tradition of secular democracy. Unfortunately, this assertion rests on a weak empirical foundation. Since becoming independent from Pakistan in 1971, democracy and secularism have been consistently undermined. Moreover, since 2000 Bangladesh has experienced more than 100 incidents of Islamist terrorism. More recently, the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda Indian Subcontinent have assaulted religious and ethnic minorities as well as secular and liberal activists. While these turns of events are alarming, Islamist militancy in Bangladesh remains understudied. In this article, we address this lacuna by undertaking regression analysis of recent Pew Research Center survey data to exposit the determinants of popular support of Islamist terrorism. With this study, we hope other scholars will be motivated to turn their attention to this increasingly important state.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Supports Suicide Terrorism in Bangladesh? What the Data Say

Fair

Hamza

Heller

2017

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ten years after the 9/11/2001 attacks on the United States by al Qaeda, nearly half of those Americans polled believed that invading Iraq was the correct decision. “Support for the decision to go to war [with Iraq] is highly correlated with beliefs held by substantial and undiminishing minorities that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda (46%) and either had a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] program or actual WMDs (47%)” (Kull & Telhami, 2011). Although the Bush administration encouraged and promoted these beliefs, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004) found little or no evidence to support them.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Authoritarianism, social dominance, and misperceptions of war.

Dunwoody

Plane

Trescher

et al. 2014

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research shows that a large segment of the U.S. population has maintained factually inaccurate beliefs concerning Iraq for at least a decade after the start of the Iraq war. These beliefs were maintained despite the fact that significant press coverage challenged them, a bipartisan Senate committee denounced them, and no new convincing evidence has surfaced to support them. The authors believe that 2 ideological preferences, authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, provide the motivational mechanisms for individuals to adopt and maintain factually inaccurate beliefs because such beliefs are consistent with their preferences. The authors combine and extend previous research by examining the relationships between authoritarianism and social dominance, the holding of factual misperceptions years after the U.S. military entered Iraq in 2003, and support for the Iraq war and a broader foreign policy of preemption. Using a student sample, they found that those higher in authoritarianism and social dominance orientation held more misperceptions about the Iraq war, which, in turn, predicted support for military engagement in Iraq and for a broader preemptive military policy. The number of misperceptions held partially mediated the effect of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on support for war. These factual misperceptions serve as justifications for individuals to express their preexisting preferences. This bias makes factually inaccurate perceptions regarding support for war relatively immutable once adopted.

show abstract

The Evolving International Judiciary

Alter

2011

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explains the rapid proliferation in international courts first in the post–World War II and then the post–Cold War eras. It examines the larger international judicial complex, showing how developments in one region and domain affect developments in similar and distant regimes. Situating individual developments into their larger context, and showing how change occurs incrementally and slowly over time, allows one to see developments in economic, human rights, and war crimes systems as part of a longer-term evolutionary process of the creation of international judicial authority. Evolution is not the same as teleology; we see that some international courts develop and change, whereas others stay in their same role and with the same low level of activity for long periods of time. The evolutionary approach of this article suggests that building judicial authority evolves through practice and takes time and that the overall international judicial context and developments in parallel institutions shape the development of individual international courts.

show abstract

American Public Opinion on International Courts and Tribunals

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Who Supports Suicide Terrorism in Bangladesh? What the Data Say

Who Supports Suicide Terrorism in Bangladesh? What the Data Say

Authoritarianism, social dominance, and misperceptions of war.

The Evolving International Judiciary

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About