ABSTRACT
This chapter sketches a portrait of top-level decision making in the face of humanitarian crises that we believe is deeply problematic. It draws from research on values and preferences to explore what may be a systematic bias leading to the discounting of humanitarian objectives in major foreign-policy decisions. The chapter points to the need for systematic structuring and assessment of objectives and values in ways. It argues that the prominence effect may underlie the apparent discrepancy between expressed and revealed values regarding whether or not to act to protect large numbers of civilian lives under attack in foreign countries. They hypothesizes that national security is the more prominent dimension in the context of deliberations among high-level government policy makers. Decision making characterization applies to most decisions concerning genocide prevention but it also applies to a host of other tough public policy choices facing governments such as responses to climate change, storage of high-level nuclear wastes, or prevention of terrorism.
