Do Americans support investigations and prosecutions for war crimes when U.S. personnel are implicated? This study asks whether public support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) endures when investigations cover U.S. military and intelligence personnel in the ICC’s Afghanistan probe, and which argumentative frames shift that support. Using an online survey experiment, the authors test whether human-rights arguments increase support and national-interest arguments decrease it, then report overall levels of public backing while noting limits tied to timing and experimental conditions.
Online survey experiment, Focus on ICC Afghanistan investigation, Measured public support for investigations and prosecutions
Data and methods
The authors field an online survey experiment to gauge U.S. public opinion and the effects of discursive frames. The abstract identifies the ICC’s Afghanistan investigation as the case that makes U.S. personnel possible targets of international criminal investigation. The design tests the impact of human-rights versus national-interest arguments on respondents’ support.
Main findings
The abstract reports that Americans’ opinions are relatively stable and that the vast majority support investigations and prosecutions. The authors describe differential expectations—human-rights frames should raise support and national-interest frames should lower it—and present experimental tests of those expectations, while qualifying results by the study’s timing and design.
- The survey experiment centers on the ICC’s Afghanistan investigation and public reaction to possible prosecutions of U.S. personnel.
- The authors find widespread baseline support for investigations and prosecutions and test how competing frames move opinion.
