Event Title

Leader In-group Bias and Intervention in Humanitarian Conflicts

Location

Taylor 309, Madison Union, JMU

Start Date

4-6-2019 3:10 PM

Description

From Saint Augustine’s criteria on Just War to the United Nations today through doctrine on the responsibility to protect, Just War Theory (JWT) remains of constant interest to humanity. It seems that certain tenets of Just War stand as universally accepted in the twenty-first century in an intellectual, philosophical way. But is Just War Theory merely a show, with no added value beyond philosophical musings among scholars and empty words making up emptier policy? What is the empirical footprint of Just War Theory, and how might we operationalize such a concept? My research question aims to explore the relationship between leadership style and its linkage to Just War conduct and outcomes: do psychological predispositions of leaders make them more or less likely to embrace tenants of Just War Theory? If so, which ones? My hypothesis is that, assuming individuals act according to rational choice theory, state leaders whose rhetoric indicates an ingroup bias are less likely to believe in the universal elements of JWT and are therefore less likely to engage in humanitarian intervention.

Presentation Type

Presentation

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 6th, 3:10 PM

Leader In-group Bias and Intervention in Humanitarian Conflicts

Taylor 309, Madison Union, JMU

From Saint Augustine’s criteria on Just War to the United Nations today through doctrine on the responsibility to protect, Just War Theory (JWT) remains of constant interest to humanity. It seems that certain tenets of Just War stand as universally accepted in the twenty-first century in an intellectual, philosophical way. But is Just War Theory merely a show, with no added value beyond philosophical musings among scholars and empty words making up emptier policy? What is the empirical footprint of Just War Theory, and how might we operationalize such a concept? My research question aims to explore the relationship between leadership style and its linkage to Just War conduct and outcomes: do psychological predispositions of leaders make them more or less likely to embrace tenants of Just War Theory? If so, which ones? My hypothesis is that, assuming individuals act according to rational choice theory, state leaders whose rhetoric indicates an ingroup bias are less likely to believe in the universal elements of JWT and are therefore less likely to engage in humanitarian intervention.