Supplying protection: The United Nations and public support for humanitarian intervention

This paper examines the role of the constellation of interveners, along with the approval of international institutions like the United Nations, on public support for military interventions to protect civilians during war. Concerns over burden sharing and free riding have figured prominently in recent debates over the provision, or lack thereof, of humanitarian interventions. An experiment embedded in a survey of a representative sample of the US public shows that citizens are influenced less by the extent of material contributions from other countries than by whether the United Nations sanctions the mission. Further analysis indicates that the United Nations functions as a legitimating device that can help overcome collective action problems, rather than through alternative approaches emphasizing the signaling of information or ensuring greater military resources. The findings have implications for research on the role of international institutions and the domestic politics of support for the use of force