| Why do states intervene militarily in some CHEs but not others sharing similar characteristics - and why do states justify still other military interventions on humanitarian grounds? What accounts for changes in the rules, meanings, and social purposes to which states can and should use force, as represented by humanitarian justification for these interventions?; This dissertation project examines whether and how international nongovernmental humanitarian actors (INGHAs) attempt to influence U.S. policymaking in cases where humanitarian intervention is considered as a possible policy response to complex humanitarian emergencies. The cases examined include Somalia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone; the INGHAs examined are the American Council for Voluntary International Action (InterAction), Save the Children (SAVE), and Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF).; INGHAs strategically frame complex humanitarian emergencies such that they disseminate normative and ideational cues that are congruent with or help facilitate a particular policy goal or outcome (strategic framing helps create shared understandings of the world and individuals within it that legitimate and motivate collective action). These organizations engage in persuasive communication by using "insider" and "outsider" strategies that prompt policymakers to reflect upon their policy preferences and become more receptive to being persuaded to debate and possibly adjust those preferences in light of new and compelling information. INGHAs also mobilize affective mechanisms such as "liking," "empathy," and social influence. When the normative and ideational cues communicated by a strategic frame resonate strongly with policymakers, it triggers an interplay among logics of decision-making policymakers utilize to formulate policy decisions. When that interplay is maximized (e.g. a particular frame normatively appeals or logically "fits" with as many of the logics of decision-making as possible, persuasion, influence, and policy change are likely to occur. |
