The Domestic Politics of Humanitarian Intervention: Public Opinion, Partisanship, and Ideology

Abstract

The debate around humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect generally concerns a collective action problem on the international level: motivating states to participate in a multilateral coalition to stop a mass atrocity. This debate presupposes that states enjoy a domestic consensus about their rights and responsibilities to intervene. This article reconsiders this assumption and examines the sources of domestic political will for intervention, particularly the role of partisanship, ideology, and public opinion on Congressional members' willingness to support US intervention for humanitarian purposes. We analyze several Congressional votes relevant to four episodes of US humanitarian intervention: Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We find that public support for humanitarian intervention increases Congressional support and that other political demands, primarily partisanship and ideological distance from the president, often trump the normative exigencies of intervention. Our findings shed light on the domestic political dynamics behind humanitarian intervention and can help explain why some recent humanitarian missions have proceeded without seeking Congressional approval.

Sweden’s Libya decision: A case of humanitarian intervention

“…When the government then decided to send troops to Libya, it knew that it could count on the support of the opposition. These findings provide support for theories on the domestic politics of military intervention (Howell and Pevehouse, 2005;Drury et al, 2010;Kreps, 2010;Hildebrandt et al, 2013). According to this literature, when governments send troops abroad, they want to make sure that the decision does not impact negatively on their political power at home.…”

“…In contrast to constructivism, rationalist researchers claim that foreign policy is 'business as usual', emphasizing various forms of self-interest in decisions to intervene (Neack, 1995;Krauthammer, 1999;Gibbs, 2000;Mearsheimer, 2001;Hildebrandt et al, 2013). By incorporating constructivist and rationalist perspectives into the same framework, the article builds on a small but growing literature on humanitarian intervention decision making (Shannon, 2000;Glanville, 2006;Ward, 2010;Krieg, 2013).…”

Domestic politics, news media and humanitarian intervention: why France and Germany diverged over Libya

“…In more recent years, various other scholars have also established a relationship between public opinion and foreign policy (e.g. Risse-Kappen 1991;Holsti 1992Holsti , 1996Powlick and Katz 1998;Sobel 2001;Stimson 2004;Hildebrandt et al 2012). …”

“…Humanitarian interventions constitute, in this respect, the most difficult balancing act for politicians (Hildebrandt et al 2012). …”

Why seek international organisation approval under unipolarity? Averting issue linkage vs. appeasing Congress

“…They may be opposed for parochial and ideological reasons, 33 or because they are beholden to sectoral economic interests that have little to gain from an assertive foreign policy involving military intervention. 34 However, as the case studies below will demonstrate, whatever other reasons members of Congress may have to oppose an intervention, in public, they tend to emphasize ostensibly non-partisan issues such as the intervention's likely costs in terms of materiél and resources.…”