Books and journals Case studies Expert Briefings Open Access
Advanced search

Do state governments have the right to kill civilians to defeat international terrorism? Views from US, Israel and South Africa

Michael Shachat (Columbia University, New York, New York, USA)
Fang Hong (Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA)
Yijing Lin (Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA)
Helena Syna Desivilya (Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, Yezreel Valley, Israel)
Dalit Yassour-Borochowitz (Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel, Emek Yezreel, Israel)
Jacqui Akhurst (Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa)
Mark M. Leach (University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA)
Kathleen Malley-Morrison (Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA)

Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research

ISSN: 1759-6599

Publication date: 8 April 2020

Abstract

Purpose

This study aim to examine the themes of moral disengagement (MD) and engagement in reasoning regarding a putative governmental right to kill innocent civilians when fighting terrorism.

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 147 participants from Israel, 101 from the USA and 80 from South Africa provided quantitative rating scale responses and qualitative explanations about such a putative right. Qualitative responses were coded for presence or absence of indices of MD and engagement.

Findings

In ANOVAs by gender and country, men scored higher than women on rating scale scores indicating support for the right; there were no significant national differences on these scores. Chi-square analyses with the coded qualitative responses indicated more men than women gave morally disengaged responses, proportionately more South Africans than Israelis provided morally disengaged responses and proportionately more South Africans and Americans than Israelis provided morally engaged responses. Pearson correlation analyses indicated that MD was positively correlated with rating scale scores and moral engagement was negatively related to rating scale scores in all three countries.

Research limitations/implications

Regarding limitations, it is difficult to know how the omission of qualitative explanations of rating scale responses by many participants influenced the statistical findings – or how to interpret the more restricted level of qualitative responses in Israel and South Africa as compared to the USA.

Social implications

Programs designed to counteract MD have the potential for helping reduce support for war and its inhumanities across diverse nations.

Originality/value

This is the first study on MD to compare American, Israeli and South African perspectives on the justifiability of human rights violations in the war on terror. The findings go beyond earlier studies in finding gender differences in MD that occurred across three very different nations in three very different parts of the world.

Keywords

  • Gender differences
  • Moral disengagement
  • Cross-cultural
  • International terrorism
  • Innocent civilians
  • Moral engagement

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Boston University Undergraduate Research Opportunity Funds.

Citation

Shachat, M., Hong, F., Lin, Y., Desivilya, H.S., Yassour-Borochowitz, D., Akhurst, J., Leach, M.M. and Malley-Morrison, K. (2020), "Do state governments have the right to kill civilians to defeat international terrorism? Views from US, Israel and South Africa", Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-11-2019-0454

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Emerald Publishing Limited

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes

You may be able to access teaching notes by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
Rent from Deepdyve
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication sitemap

Policies and information

  • Privacy notice
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window
  • Chair of Trustees governance statement Opens in new window
  • COVID-19 policy Opens in new window
Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald Engage?

    You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here.
    You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Questions & More Information

    Answers to the most commonly asked questions here