International Law, Foreign Policy, and Public Demands for Punishing Torture

• In Event: Citizen Opinion on International Cooperation

Abstract

Under what conditions are publics more likely to demand punishment of foreign wrongdoers for violations of international human rights law? While there is growing interest in the effect of international law on mass public attitudes, the literature lacks a theoretical framework to explain the variation in public demands for accountability. We examine how the identity of foreign perpetrators of torture, the degree of legal constraints, and individual foreign policy orientations affect public demands for punishment through survey experiments conducted in the United States, Germany, and Turkey. Our results show that demand for accountability is lower when torture is perpetrated by an international ally as compared to an international adversary. This accommodating attitude, however, is mitigated when the public becomes more aware of the international legal constraints on the use of torture. In contrast, citizens become less interested in punishing perpetrators, regardless of perpetrator identity, when they prefer isolationist foreign policies. Our findings contribute to a fuller understanding of how human rights treaties constrain government behavior through the public opinion mechanism by showing how macro and micro-level factors shape public demands for punishment.

Authors

• A. Burcu Bayram, University of Arkansas

• Eric Keels, Air War College

• Efe Tokdemir, Bilkent University