Justifying War Crimes: What Explains Variations in Public Support for Violations of International Humanitarian Law?

Are war crimes and the indiscriminate targeting of civilians ever acceptable? Public opinion surveys show varied responses to this question. This project seeks to understand this variation and asks what factors lead people to defend violations of international humanitarian law (IHL). We explore three relevant factors. First, individuals may believe IHL violations are acceptable if the opposing side is also in violation, consistent with a reciprocity norm. Second, because public understanding of IHL is limited, statements by international institutions may affect how people assess situations. Third, individuals’ political identification may mediate their willingness to justify violations of IHL. To test these hypotheses, we conduct a pre-registered survey experiment. This approach allows us to identify the causal relationship between our explanatory factors and individuals’ attitudes. The survey will be fielded in four countries (Sweden, Turkey, the US, and India) to increase generalizability and enable a comparison of national differences. We will use a vignette experiment describing a situation of a democratic state that violates IHL when responding to a militant threat. Insights from the project are important for understanding what people consider justified responses to military threats and how to maintain respect for IHL in an increasingly polarized world.