Abstract
Third-party adjudicators, be they governments, or politicians or academics, can take positions regarding who initiated a conflict, who is to blame for harm or damage, and who has violated international law. Decisions need not always be objective. There can be bias. I consider the anomaly of biased adjudicators providing incentives for harm to their favored side. The anomaly arises in real-life circumstances. The puzzle is why adjudicators with good intentions cooperate in bringing harm to the civilian population of the side with which they sympathize. Anomalies are usually addressed in a context of behavioral economics. I consider both behavioral and rational explanations.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 275-285 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | Public Choice |
Volume | 186 |
Issue number | 3-4 |
Early online date | 29 Nov 2019 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Mar 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Keywords
- Cognitive dissonance
- Hamas
- Israel
- Politics of identity
- Post-modernism
- Prejudice
- Selective-perception bias
- Supreme values
- Third-party intervention