Once a driving force behind international justice, U.S. public support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) has grown steadily despite governmental ambivalence or hostility.
Key Insight
Drawing from U.S. foreign policy studies and American political framing literature, this research theorizes that how the ICC is presented to Americans matters greatly: human rights frames boost support while national interest arguments decrease it.
🔍 Framing Experiment Findings
• Framing significantly influences opinions on joining the ICC
• Competing dual frames (human rights vs. national interests) yield moderate, yet distinct results compared to single-frame treatments
• Americans' beliefs about international organizations' effectiveness and impartiality outweigh framing effects in determining support for the ICC
💡 Takeaway
This suggests that demonstrating the ICC's credibility could effectively mobilize public opinion and potentially drive U.S. policy change.
| Human Rights Versus National Interests: Shifting Us Public Attitudes on the International Criminal Court was authored by Kelebogile Zvobgo. It was published by Oxford in ISQ in 2019. |
