Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMaxey, Sarah
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-26T14:15:41Z
dc.date.available2019-09-11T06:01:02Z
dc.date.issued2017-08-30
dc.identifier.otherMaxey_cornellgrad_0058F_10390
dc.identifier.otherhttp://dissertations.umi.com/cornellgrad:10390
dc.identifier.otherbibid: 10361400
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1813/56723
dc.description.abstractConventional wisdom assumes that national security justifications are the most effective way to bolster support for military action and uniformly persuade the domestic audience. Using an original dataset of justifications for all potential U.S. interventions, 1990-2013, I show that contrary to these expectations U.S. presidents employed humanitarian justifications in every military intervention of the past 25 years. Why are humanitarian justifications prevalent, even in popular, security-driven interventions? To what extent do these justifications facilitate the use of military force? Combining content analysis, survey experiments, and archival research, I focus on the domestic audience to argue that humanitarian justifications are necessary to build a coalition of support from a public with diverse foreign policy beliefs. In particular, humanitarian claims resonate with individuals who are unconvinced by security justifications and are otherwise active opponents of intervention. As a result of their broad appeal, presidents have an incentive to emphasize humanitarian claims as often as possible; however, the same constituents that make humanitarian justifications necessary also constrain their use. Specifically, individuals with cooperative internationalist values are uniquely influenced by humanitarian claims, but punish leaders who misuse humanitarian explanations. The findings have implications for whose support matters most in the build-up to military interventions and the conditions under which presidents can use moral appeals to obtain this support.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.subjectInternational relations
dc.subjectpublic opinion
dc.subjectdomestic politics
dc.subjectforeign policy
dc.subjecthumanitarian
dc.subjectmilitary intervention
dc.titleTHE HUMANITARIAN DISCOURSE OF FORCE: EXPLAINING U.S. PRESIDENTS' JUSTIFICATIONS FOR MILITARY INTERVENTION
dc.typedissertation or thesis
thesis.degree.disciplineGovernment
thesis.degree.grantorCornell University
thesis.degree.levelDoctor of Philosophy
thesis.degree.namePh. D., Government
dc.contributor.chairEvangelista, Matthew Anthony
dc.contributor.committeeMemberKreps, Sarah E.
dc.contributor.committeeMemberEnns, Peter
dc.contributor.committeeMemberWay, Christopher Robert
dcterms.licensehttps://hdl.handle.net/1813/59810
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.7298/X45T3HMH


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Statistics