Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPotrafke, Niklas
dc.contributor.authorHillman, Arye L.
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-25T16:26:12Z
dc.date.available2019-09-25T16:26:12Z
dc.date.created2015-04-17 15:18
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifieroai:econstor.eu:10419/108782
dc.identifierppn:819770701
dc.identifierRePec:ces:ceswps:_5234
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/108782
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/345457
dc.description.abstractThe United Nations Goldstone Report criminalized self-defense against state-sponsored or state-perpetrated terror. We use voting on the two UN General Assembly resolutions relating to the Goldstone Report to study whether support for the Goldstone principle of criminalization of self-defense against terror was influenced by countries political institutions. Our results, using two different measures of political institutions, reveal systematic differences in voting by democracies and autocracies: as an example, based on the Chief-in-Executive measure of political institutions, a country with the highest democracy score was some 55 percentage points less likely to vote in favor of the second of the two UN Goldstone resolutions and some 55 percentage points more likely to abstain than a country with the highest autocratic score. The differences between democracies and autocracies in willingness to initiate symmetric welfare are therefore also reflected in differences in sensitivities to loss of life and harm in asymmetric warfare, through broad support by democracies, but not by autocracies, for legitimacy of self-defense against state-supported or state-perpetrated terror. The Goldstone Report is unique among United Nations reports in having been eventually repudiated by its principal author.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherCESifo München
dc.relation.ispartofCESifo Working Paper 5234
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen
dc.subjectUnited Nations
dc.subjectwar crimes
dc.subjectIsrael
dc.subjectasymmetric warfare
dc.subjectsupreme values
dc.subjectddc:330
dc.subjectstate-perpetrated terror
dc.subjectinternational law
dc.subjectexpressive voting
dc.subjectstate-sponsored terror
dc.subjectdemocracy
dc.subjecthuman rights
dc.subjectautocracy
dc.subjectUNGA voting
dc.titleThe UN Goldstone Report and Retraction: An Empirical Investigation
dc.typedoc-type:workingPaper
ge.collectioncodeBH
ge.dataimportlabelOAI metadata object
ge.identifier.legacyglobethics:6085655
ge.identifier.permalinkhttps://www.globethics.net/gel/6085655
ge.lastmodificationdate2019-09-19 15:31
ge.lastmodificationuseradmin@pointsoftware.ch
ge.submissions0
ge.oai.exportid53
ge.oai.repositoryid2851
ge.oai.setnameCESifo Working Papers
ge.oai.setnameEconomics
ge.oai.setnameWorkingPaper
ge.oai.setnameopen_access
ge.oai.setspechdl_10419_19
ge.oai.setspecddc:330
ge.oai.setspecdoc-type:workingPaper
ge.oai.setspecopen_access
ge.oai.streamid1
ge.setnameGlobeEthicsLib
ge.setspecglobeethicslib
ge.linkhttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/108782


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record