Promises that sovereignty would be regained, immigration and asylum controlled, and national identity reasserted were central to the Brexit referendum campaign of 2016 and the ultimate decision to leave the EU. In debates on EU membership, protection, labour, and other forms of migration were frequently conflated and portrayed as being ‘out of control’. Post-Brexit, these issues remain at the centre of political debate and legal change, both in the UK and in European states.

Around the world, we are facing major economic, social, and environmental challenges that cannot be solved without collaborative global leadership. At the same time, paradigm-shifting advances in technology are reshaping how we live and work, creating new opportunities while challenging long-standing practices and assumptions. Leaders across business, government, and civil society all have a role to play.

At the time of the American Revolution (1765–83), the British Empire had colonies in India, Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific, Canada, Ireland, and Gibraltar. The thirteen rebellious American colonies accounted for half of the total number of provinces in the British world in 1776. What of the loyal half? Why did some of Britain’s subjects feel so aggrieved that they wanted to establish a new system of government, while others did not rebel?

This paper examines how populations in conflict zones perceive foreign military interventions, using Mali as a case study. Based on an original survey experiment (N = 1,594), it compares support for interventions led by the UN, ECOWAS, France, and Russia, focusing on how actor identity, perceived effectiveness, and integrity shape preferences.