IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pepspp/v23y2017i3p18n3.html

International Adjudication and Public Opinion in Territorial Disputes: Evidence from a Survey Experiment Using Amazon Mechanical Turk

Author

Listed:
  • Justwan Florian

    (University of Idaho, Department of Politics and Philosophy, 875 Perimeter Drive, MS 3165, Moscow, Idaho 83843, USA)

  • Fisher Sarah K.

    (Emory and Henry College, Politics, Law & International Relations, Emory, Virginia, USA)

Abstract

This article explores the effects of international adjudication on individual-level attitudes in territorial disputes. In particular, we investigate the micro-foundations for the argument that international court rulings provide political cover for governments settling disputes through unpopular territorial concessions. In an online survey conducted for this project, 494 Indian respondents were confronted with a fictitious foreign policy scenario. A randomized experiment embedded in the survey provides four major findings. First, international adjudication makes citizens more willing to support concessions in border disputes. Second, international courts influence the perceived fairness of comprosmise solutions. Third, legal conflict management mediates the emotional fallout of territorial concessions. Finally, we do not find any evidence for the claim that international adjudication reduces individual-level concerns over commitment problems. By focusing on individual-level data, this article provides an important contribution to the literature on international conflict management.

Suggested Citation

  • Justwan Florian & Fisher Sarah K., 2017. "International Adjudication and Public Opinion in Territorial Disputes: Evidence from a Survey Experiment Using Amazon Mechanical Turk," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 23(3), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:23:y:2017:i:3:p:18:n:3
    DOI: 10.1515/peps-2017-0003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2017-0003
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/peps-2017-0003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    2. Senese, Paul D. & Vasquez, John A., 2005. "Assessing the Steps to War," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(4), pages 607-633, October.
    3. Allee, Todd L. & Huth, Paul K., 2006. "Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 219-234, May.
    4. Powell, Emilia Justyna, 2015. "Islamic Law States and Peaceful Resolution of Territorial Disputes," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 777-807, October.
    5. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    6. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    7. Jack S. Levy & Michael K. McKoy & Paul Poast & Geoffrey P.R. Wallace, 2015. "Backing Out or Backing In? Commitment and Consistency in Audience Costs Theory," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(4), pages 988-1001, October.
    8. Huth, Paul K. & Croco, Sarah E. & Appel, Benjamin J., 2011. "Does International Law Promote the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes? Evidence from the Study of Territorial Conflicts since 1945," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 415-436, May.
    9. Tomz, Michael R. & Weeks, Jessica L. P., 2013. "Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(4), pages 849-865, November.
    10. Tomz, Michael, 2007. "Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(4), pages 821-840, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    2. Daniel L. Nielson & Susan D. Hyde & Judith Kelley, 2019. "The elusive sources of legitimacy beliefs: Civil society views of international election observers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 685-715, December.
    3. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    4. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, IZA Network @ LISER.
    5. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    6. Wladislaw Mill & Cornelius Schneider, 2023. "The Bright Side of Tax Evasion," CESifo Working Paper Series 10615, CESifo.
    7. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    8. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    10. Lefgren, Lars J. & Sims, David P. & Stoddard, Olga B., 2016. "Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 89-97.
    11. Bhatt, Vipul & Smith, Angela M., 2025. "Overconfidence and performance: Evidence from a simple real-effort task," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    12. Tim Straub & Henner Gimpel & Florian Teschner & Christof Weinhardt, 2015. "How (not) to Incent Crowd Workers," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(3), pages 167-179, June.
    13. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G James & Stéphane Luchini & James J Murphy & Jason F Shogren, 2021. "Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    14. Hiroki Ozono & Daisuke Nakama, 2022. "Effects of experimental situation on group cooperation and individual performance: Comparing laboratory and online experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell us about p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Online Experiments," I4R Discussion Paper Series 8, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    16. Chandler, Dana & Kapelner, Adam, 2013. "Breaking monotony with meaning: Motivation in crowdsourcing markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 123-133.
    17. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    18. David Ronayne & Daniel Sgroi, 2018. "On the motivations for the dual-use of electronic and traditional cigarettes," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(12), pages 830-834, July.
    19. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    20. Christ, Margaret H. & Vance, Thomas W., 2018. "Cascading controls: The effects of managers’ incentives on subordinate effort to help or harm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 20-32.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:23:y:2017:i:3:p:18:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyterbrill.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.