US versus Them? Reciprocal Benefits Affect Public Support for International Law

• In Event: FDI and Domestic Politics

Abstract

What explains public opinion towards international legal rulings? Current research suggests that citizens respond strongly to negative cues and media coverage, which can erode support for international law. Yet, these studies typically do not incorporate information about how countries benefit from international law, painting an incomplete picture of public debate. We theorize that cues about the reciprocal benefits of international law – that it can be accessed equally both by outside parties and the other side to a dispute – should have an important, positive effect on citizens’ support. We evaluate our theory using a nationally representative survey experiment in the United States (US) examining views towards the controversial Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. Two major findings stand out. First, in line with previous research, we show that the public is more supportive of international law if their country is the initiator of a dispute rather than when they are the target. Second, we show that in cases where their country is a target, information about the reciprocal use of ISDS by foreign firms or by US firms in other cases increases support. Our findings demonstrate that citizens are sensitive to cues about both the costs and reciprocal benefits of international law.

Authors

• Andrew David Lugg, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

• Jared Oestman, University of Nevada Las Vegas