Replication data for: Martial Law? Military Experience, International Law, and Support for Torture

A large body of work points to diverging civil-military views on the initial decision to use force, yet there is little sense if similar differences hold over appropriate conduct in the midst of armed conflict. The rise of international laws governing behavior during war has similarly raised the question of whether these rules can shape the beliefs of various domestic actors. This paper seeks to address both gaps in the literature by leveraging the use of experiments embedded in a pair of U.S. national surveys to examine the impact of international law and military experience on individual attitudes toward torture. The results show veterans are significantly more likely to support torture compared to civilians without any prior military background. International law further reduces civilian support for torture, while veterans are largely unaffected by general legal appeals. However, when facing highly precise rules, or where the threat of punishment is delegated to third parties, more legalized agreements can significantly reduce veteran support for torture. The results have implications for the study of institutional design, the differential effects of legal norms on non-state actors, and the potential for greater awareness of the laws of war to influence attitudes toward wartime violence.大量研究表明，军民双方在武力使用的初始决策上存在观点分歧，但目前学界尚不清楚，在武装冲突期间的恰当行为准则方面是否也存在类似差异。随着战时行为国际法的兴起，相关问题亦随之而来：这些规则能否影响各类国内行为体（domestic actors）的认知？本文借助嵌入两项美国全国调查的实验，旨在弥补现有研究的两处空白，以探讨国际法与军事经历对个体酷刑态度的影响。研究结果显示，与无任何军事背景的平民相比，退伍军人支持酷刑的比例显著更高。一般性的法律呼吁可进一步降低平民对酷刑的支持度，但对退伍军人基本无影响。然而，当面对高度明确的规则，或处罚威胁被委托给第三方时，更具法治化的协定可显著降低退伍军人对酷刑的支持意愿。本研究结果对制度设计（institutional design）研究、法律规范对非国家行为体（non-state actors）的差异化影响，以及提升战争法（laws of war）认知以影响战时暴力态度的潜在可能性，均具有重要参考意义。