Four Tales of International Law: How Legal Frames Affect Perceptions

• In Event: International Law and International Courts

Abstract

A significant body of experimental research has shown that citizens are more critical of government policy that breaches international law. With some exceptions, this finding holds across many issue-areas, including security, human rights, and environmental affairs.

I argue that legal frames can invoke a variety of cognitive processes. First, law can affect perceptions by offering clarity -- about whether alleged breach is indeed a breach. Second, illegality can increase concerns about punishment or some other cost for noncompliance. Third, law can create a sense of obligation that operates independently of concerns about punishment. Finally, appealing to law can increase concerns about the moral implications of breaking rules.

Each of these processes is distinct, though they may overlap for different people. They also underpin a longstanding literature on the causal processes that drive compliance with international law writ large, though moral concerns may be particularly pronounced in particular areas, such as human rights (as compared to less normatively charged areas). Yet, most experimental research does not unpack these differing processes.

I test each of these propositions via survey experiments in the US, the UK, and Australia. The specific focus of this research is refugee policy, but the propositions are relevant to human rights and other areas covered by international law. Preliminary work in the US suggests that legal frames drive up opposition to harsh detention conditions by offering clarity, activating a sense of obligation, and increasing moral outrage. Concerns about costs and/or punishment do not appear to be at play.

Author

• Jana von Stein, The Australian National University