Do all lives have the same value? Support for international military interventions as a function of political system and public opinion of target states

Abstract

This research examined the support for international military interventions as a function of the political system and the public opinion of the target country. In two experiments, we informed participants about a possible military intervention by the international community towards a sovereign country whose government planned to use military force against a secessionist region. They were then asked whether they would support this intervention whilst being reminded that it would cause civilian deaths. The democratic or nondemocratic political system of the target country was experimentally manipulated, and the population support for its belligerent government policy was either assessed (Experiment 1) or manipulated (Experiment 2). Results showed greater support for the intervention when the target country was nondemocratic, as compared to the democratic and the control conditions, but only when its population supported the belligerent government policy. Support for the external intervention was low when the target country was democratic, irrespective of national public opinion. These findings provide support for the democracy-as-value hypothesis applied to international military interventions, and suggest that civilian deaths (collateral damage) are more acceptable when nondemocratic populations support their government's belligerent policy.

In the name of democracy: The value of democracy explains leniency towards wrongdoings as a function of group political organization

“…This would be consistent with perceptions of nondemocratic groups as being endowed with a lower moral value (Falomir‐Pichastor et al, ) and lacking essential qualities attributed to democratic individuals such as self‐control, autonomy, self‐sufficiency and individual responsibility (Joffe & Staerklé, ; Staerklé, ). Future research should investigate whether this theoretical framework is relevant to account for the observed effects in addition to the democracy‐as‐value hypothesis (Falomir‐Pichastor, Pereira, et al, ).…”

“…The present studies help to understand how endorsement of democratic principles can affect and bias people's judgments in the context of conflict‐ridden intergroup relations between democratic and nondemocratic groups (see, e.g., Healy, Hoffman, Beer & Bourne, ; Herrmann, Tetlock, & Visser, ; Mintz & Geva, ). In particular, our findings suggest that armed interventions would be more easily accepted when committed by democratic rather than nondemocratic societies (Falomir‐Pichastor et al, ; Falomir‐Pichastor et al, ), especially by people with a strongly positive and possibly idealized attitude towards democracy.…”

“…A series of empirical studies has shown that intergroup aggressions and military interventions were perceived as less illegitimate when the offenders belong to a democratic group, rather than a nondemocratic one, specifically when the victim group was nondemocratic (Falomir‐Pichastor, Staerklé, Depuiset, & Butera, ; see also Falomir‐Pichastor, Staerklé, et al, ). Furthermore, this pattern of findings was replicated on the support for the collective punishment of the offender group: the collective punishment of a democratic group whose victim was nondemocratic was less acceptable than all other combinations of aggressor and victim groups (Falomir‐Pichastor, Staerklé, Depuiset, & Butera, ; see also Falomir‐Pichastor, Pereira, et al, ). These results indicate that not only does democracy provide legitimacy to wrongful actions such as aggressive and belligerent acts, it also protects democratic offender groups from punishment.…”

“…Democracy has become an ideological belief system that grants legitimacy to actions carried out by democratic groups, whatever the moral nature of these actions may be (Falomir‐Pichastor, Staerklé et al, ; Falomir‐Pichastor, Pereira et al, ). The goal of the present research was to show that wrongful actions perpetrated by democratic groups (as compared with those of nondemocratic groups) are legitimized through the upholding of democracy as a value, thereby providing an understanding of the underlying processes of this relative leniency towards democratic wrongdoings in retributive justice judgments.…”

“…Evidence for this reasoning comes from research based on the democracy‐as‐value hypothesis, which states that democracy constitutes an ideological belief system providing in and by itself value to democratic actors and legitimacy to their actions (Falomir‐Pichastor, Pereira, Staerklé, & Butera, ; Falomir‐Pichastor, Staerklé, Pereira, & Butera, ). A series of empirical studies has shown that intergroup aggressions and military interventions were perceived as less illegitimate when the offenders belong to a democratic group, rather than a nondemocratic one, specifically when the victim group was nondemocratic (Falomir‐Pichastor, Staerklé, Depuiset, & Butera, ; see also Falomir‐Pichastor, Staerklé, et al, ).…”