Doctoral Dissertation Research: Explaining Presidents' Use of Humanitarian Justifications for Military Intervention.

在过去25年的每一次军事干预中，美国总统都使用人道主义理由？关于保护平民？向美国公众解释军事行动该项目的重点是在主要由国家安全关切驱动的干预措施中使用人道主义索赔，以更好地了解这些理由如何影响公众与战争之间的关系。PI认为，公众对人道主义干预的高度支持促使总统扩大人道主义索赔的限制，这可能会产生两个意想不到的潜在负面后果。首先，总统可能会用人道主义理由说服公众支持本来不受欢迎的干预。其次，过度使用人道主义声明可能会造成公众的怀疑，使其更难获得支持以防止未来的大规模暴行。PI从三个方面研究了使用人道主义框架的后果：1）她考虑了人道主义理由的重要性如何随着时间的推移而变化，2）她研究了总统何时最有可能依赖人道主义主张，3）她研究了公众接受人道主义解释的意愿是否有限制。这项研究对美国未来何时进行干预，特别是在应对大规模暴行时，以及公众是否有能力让总统对军事行动负责具有一定的意义。技术摘要为了研究人道主义理由在当代美国军事干预中的作用，PI采用了一种多方法，包括三个不同的步骤：1）总统演讲的内容分析，2）干预措施的比较案例研究，3）关于个人支持人道主义呼吁的条件的调查实验。首先，PI使用基于词典的国家总统演讲内容分析构建了一个原始数据集，该数据集跟踪了1945年至2013年美国所有潜在干预的三个理由类别的频率。其次，她研究了三对干预和不干预，从三个总统政府。这些案例研究利用国家安全档案馆和总统图书馆的主要资料，研究了在干预的情况下，总统最有可能强调人道主义主张的时间。案例研究还突出说明了人道主义关切如何以及为何成为军事行动的官方理由以及国际行为体的作用。第三，PI使用一个调查实验来调查人道主义理由增加对干预的支持的条件。特别是，委员会审议了支持是否以公众相信人道主义要求是真诚的以及军事行动主要是出于人道主义关切为条件。

General SummaryIn every military intervention of the past twenty-five years, U.S. presidents have used humanitarian justifications?references to the protection of civilians?to explain military action to the U.S. public. The project focuses on the use of humanitarian claims in interventions driven primarily by national security concerns to better understand how these justifications affect the relationship between the public and war. the PI argues that high levels of public support for humanitarian interventions create an incentive for presidents to stretch the limits of humanitarian claims, which can have two unintended and potentially negative consequences. First, presidents may use humanitarian justifications to convince the public to support otherwise unpopular interventions. Second, the over-use of humanitarian claims may create a skeptical public, making it harder to build support to prevent mass atrocities in the future. The PI investigates the consequences of this use of the humanitarian frame in three ways: 1) she considers how the prominence of humanitarian justifications has changed over time, 2) she examines when presidents are most likely to rely on humanitarian claims, and 3) she examines whether there are limits to the public' willingness to accept humanitarian explanations. The research has implications for when the U.S. will intervene in the future, especially in response to mass atrocities, and for the public's ability to hold presidents accountable for military action.Technical Summary To examine the role of humanitarian justifications in contemporary U.S. military interventions, the PI employs a multi-methods approach with three distinct steps: 1) content analysis of presidential speeches, 2) comparative case studies of interventions, and 3) a survey experiment on the conditions under which individuals support humanitarian appeals. First, the PI uses dictionary-based content analysis of national presidential addresses to construct an original dataset that tracks the frequency of three justification categories for all potential U.S. interventions from 1945 to 2013. Second, she examines three pairs of interventions and non-interventions from three presidential administrations. Using primary sources from the National Security Archives and presidential libraries, these case studies examine when, within cases of intervention, presidents are most likely to emphasize humanitarian claims. The case studies also highlight how and why humanitarian concerns become a part of official justifications for military action and the role of international actors. Third, the PI uses a survey experiment to investigate the conditions under which humanitarian justifications increase support for intervention. In particular, it considers whether support is conditional on the public's belief that humanitarian claims are sincere and that military action is primarily motivated by humanitarian concerns.