Why do people support promoting human rights? Common explanations center on the characteristics of states or individuals, particularly ideology. In this study, I focus on the role of empathy for outgroups. Contact theory suggests that intergroup contact reduces prejudice and increases support for outgroup members. I argue that empathy for outgroups increases support for defending the rights of foreigners abroad. Testing this argument is challenging given selection biases and the potential confounding effects of high prejudice and alternative norms. I use geocoded public opinion data from 35 African countries to study the level of contact with outgroups and its impact on preferences for promoting rights overseas. I use the geographic distance to the nearest international border and border crossing as a novel measure of contact with outgroups and find that the closer an individual is to an international land border or an international crossing point, the higher their support for preventing human rights abuses in other countries. These results are robust to a battery of covariates, robustness checks, and model specifications. In addition, the study shows that border hardening reduces support for human rights policies, while proximity to international borders is not correlated with other potential confounders such as concerns about security and migration. Overall, this study provides evidence that border zones, despite being the edge of sovereignty, generate stakeholders for human rights.
This was originally published on SAGE Publications Ltd: Journal of Peace Research: Table of Contents.
