Abstract Recent evidence suggests that public support for holding soldiers accountable for war crimes and human rights violations is conditional on the national identity of the soldier. We investigate how information about the status and application of humanitarian and human rights norms, in ways that draw on national identity, might reduce bias in prosecuting soldiers who kill civilians. Using survey experiments in the United States and the United Kingdom, we find that among our four norm-reinforcing information treatments, only references to principled conduct by close and like-minded allies can significantly increase public willingness to prosecute and uphold the rule of law in both countries, although this finding is highly dependent on the specific ally referenced. Depending on the context and application, highlighting national outgroup violations and potential hypocrisy by leveraging the timing of the survey to capture the abuse of Ukrainians by Russian soldiers, at least temporarily increased the willingness to prosecute in the United States. Otherwise, leveraging pride in the military to reinforce norms, or informing the public about their government's commitment to these norms does little to alter attitudes. Although communicating norms in ways that have cultural and national salience has the potential to strengthen public commitment to accountability, where there are strong preexisting partisan and national loyalties it is difficult to do so.
Dasandi et al. (2026) studied this question.