State Atrocities, Rebel Governance, and Public Opinion on Humanitarian Intervention

How do rebel groups shape democratic publics’ attitudes toward humanitarian intervention? Many state-led atrocities occur during civil wars, yet rebels are often portrayed solely as sources of instability rather than as governing actors who shape external perceptions. We argue that rebels’ modes of governance—whether inclusive or exclusive in service provision and decision-making—fundamentally shape public opinion on intervention. Inclusive governance that embodies equality and participation reinforces identification with democratic values, strengthening the moral imperative to protect and the instrumental confidence that intervention would be both justified and effective. In contrast, exclusive governance, marked by coercion or discrimination, undermines perceptions of shared identity and moral legitimacy, making state repression appear justified and intervention less defensible. We test these claims through survey experiments in the U.S. (N=1,615) and the U.K. (N=1,583). Across both countries, inclusive governance boosts perceived legitimacy and credibility of rebels, fostering positive attitudes toward humanitarian intervention, while exclusive governance undermines these perceptions and weakens public endorsement.