Multilateralism and public support for drone strikes

Abstract

The use of armed drones has emerged as a principal counterterrorism tool for western militaries, especially France and the United States. While France submits its strikes to the United Nations for approval, the United States typically does not. Does this difference matter for public support and perceptions of legitimacy? To better understand these dynamics, we fielded original survey experiments across nationally representative samples in France and the United States totaling in over 1800 respondents. Our results reflect that international approval is associated with both higher public support and greater perceived legitimacy for a strike. Further, we find that respondents emphasize international law as the basis for support and legitimacy, suggesting a cross-national belief in multilateralism for normative rather than strictly instrumental reasons. These relationships are moderated by the identity of the country conducting a hypothetical strike, implying both an “othering” effect and the emergence of distinct models of strikes across countries that deserve more study amid the ongoing proliferation of armed drones. Video Abstract: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YevyaKThae0

Overtrust in AI Recommendations to Kill

“…Although the exact figures may never be known, US military forces and the Central Intelligence Agency have killed scores of civilians in drone attacks. Official reports acknowledge the deaths of hundreds 1 , whereas independent estimates reach the low thousands, including hundreds of children 2,3 . Decisions to launch drone strikes exemplify a broader class of grave decisions made with imperfect and incomplete information which are vulnerable to cognitive biases 4 .…”