DOCSLIB.ORG

Aggressive Behaviors Within Politics, 1948-1962: a Cross-National Study," Journal of Conflict Resolution 10, No.3 (September 1966): 249-270

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aggressive Behaviors Within Politics, 1948-1962: a Cross-National Study, NOTES 1 INTRODUCTION: CONTENDING VIEWS-MILITARISM, MILITARIZATION AND WAR 1. Ivo Feierabend and Rosalind Feierabend, "Aggressive Behaviors within Politics, 1948-1962: A Cross-National Study," Journal of Conflict Resolution 10, no.3 (September 1966): 249-270. 2. Patrick Morgan, "Disarmament," in Joel Krieger, ed., The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993),246. 3. Stuart Bremer, "Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Mfecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816-1965," Journal of Conflict Resolution 36, no.2 (June 1992): 309-341,318,330; The remainder of Bremer's study has to do with the impact of military spending and not with variations caused by regime type. 4. Thomas Lindemann and Michel Louis Martin, "The Military and the Use of Force," in Giuseppe Caforio, ed., Handbook of the Sociology of the Military (New York: Kluwer, 2003),99-109,104-109. 5. Alfred Vagts, Defense and Diplomacy-The Soldier and the Conduct of Foreign Relations (New York: King Crown's Press, 1958), 3. The concept was subsequently applied by Herbert Spencer, Otto Hintze, and Karl Marx. See Volker Berghahn, Militarism: The History of an International Debate, 1861-1979 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 6. Herbert Spencer, Principles of Sociology, Stanislav Andreski, ed. (London: Macmillan, 1969): 499-571. 7. Felix Gilbert, ed., The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), 199. 8. Karl Liebknecht, Militarism (Toronto: William Briggs, 1917); Berghahn, 18,23,25. 9. James Donovan, Militarism U.S.A. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970),25. 10. Berghahn, 19. 11. Dan Reiter and Allan Starn, "IdentifYing the Culprit: Democracy, Dictatorship, and Dispute Initiation," American Political Science Review 97, no.2 (May 2003): 333-337; see also R. J. Rummel, "Democracies are 160 NOTES Less Warlike than Other Regimes," European Journal of International Relations 1, no.4 (December 1995): 457--478; and "Libertarianism and International Violence," Journal of Conflict Resolution 27, no.l (March 1983): 27-71; Daniel Geller and J. David Singer, Nations at War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 52-53, 56; Linda Brady and Charles Kegley, Jr., "Bureaucratic Determinants of Foreign Policy: Some Empirical Evidence," International Interactions 3, no.l (1977): 33-50; Robert A. Hanneman, "Military Elites and Political Executives," Journal ofPolitical and Military Sociology 14, no.l (Spring 1986): 75-89. 12. T. Clifton Morgan and Sally Howard Campbell, "Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War," Journal ofConflict Resolution 35, no.2 (June 1991): 187-211, 193; James Lee Ray, Democracy and International Conflict: An Evaluation ofthe Democratic Peace Proposition (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995); Jonathan Wilkenfeld, Michael Brecher, and Sheila Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century. Volume II: Handbook of International Crisis (New York: Pergamon, 1988), 197. 13. Geller and Singer, 52-53, 55-56; Zeev Maoz and Nasrin Abdolali, "Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976," Journal of Conflict Resolution 33, no.l (March 1989): 3-35,30-31; Erich Weede, "Democracy and War Involvement," Journal of Conflict Resolution 28, no.4 (December 1984): 649-664; Melvin Small and J. David Singer, "The War-Proneness of Democratic Regimes, 1816-1965," Jerusalem Journal ofInternational Relations 1, no.4 (Summer 1976): 50-69; Joe D. Hagan, "Domestic Political Systems and War Proneness." Mershon International Studies Review 38, no.2 (October 1994): 183-208. 14. Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder, "Democratization and the Danger of War," International Security 20, no.l (Summer 1995): 5-38; On the impact of military influences on governing coalitions, see Jack Snyder, Myths of Empire-Domestic Politics and International Ambition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), 31-60. 15. Berghahn, 42; There are studies on the narrower development of doc­ trine. See Barry Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), and Jack Snyder, The Ideology of the Offensive (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984). 16. Martin Shaw, Post-Military Society (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1991), 3, 9, 18; Andrew Ross, "Dimensions of Militarization in the Third World," Armed Forces and Society 13, no.4 ( Summer 1987): 562-564. 17. Bremer, 318, 330. 18. Militarism has not articulated a generalizable set of testable hypotheses. 19. R. Rummel, 1983; Rummel 1995; for the critics of this proposition, see Steve Chan, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall ... Are the Freer Countries More Pacific," Journal of Conflict Resolution 28, no.4 (December 1984): 617-648, and Errol Henderson, Democracy and War (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002), 68-73. NOTES 161 20. Seung-Whan Choi and Patrick James, Civil-Military Dynamics, Democracy and International Conflict (New York: Palgrave, 2005), 148. 21. Democracies have not been shown to be more peaceful than other types of regimes. For more on this debate, see Sven Chojnacki, "Democratic Wars and Military Interventions, 1946-2002: The Monadic Level Reconsidered," in Anna Geis, Lothar Brock, and Harald Muller, eds., Democratic Wars (New York: Palgrave, 2006), 13-37, 14, and Henderson, 53-58. 22. Gilbert, 180-215. 23. Eliot Cohen, Supreme Command (New York: Free Press, 2002), 225-248; Eric Gartzke, "Democracy and the Preparation for War: Does Regime Type Affect States' Anticipation of Casualties?" International Studies Quarterly 45, no.3 (September 2001): 467-484,477; Ajin Choi, "Democratic Synergy and Victory in War," International Studies Quarterly 48, no.3 (September 2004): 663-682, 672; Michael Desch, "Democracy and Victory," International Security 27, no.2 (Fall 2002): 5-47,21,33. 24. Dan Reiter and Allan C. Starn, "Democracy and Battlefield Military Effectiveness," Journal of Conflict Resolution 42, no.3 (June 1998): 259-277, 272; Deborah Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994); Thomas Scheetz, "Military Expenditure and Development in Latin America," in Jurgen Brauer and J. Paul Dunne, eds., Arming the South (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002),51-70,61; D. Scott Bennett and Allan C. Starn, "The Declining Advantages of Democracy," Journal of Conflict Resolution 42, no.3 (June 1998): 344-366, 361. 25. Choi,663-682. 26. Chojnacki, 23; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Starn, Democracies at War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), chapter 2. 27. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Randolph Siverson, "Wars and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability," American Political Science Review 89, no.4 (December 1995): 841-855,852. 28. This definition is a hybrid of Andreski's military rule and preparation for war variants of militarism. Stanislav Andreski, Military Ot;JJanization and Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 168), 184-186. 29. For some, in contrast, budgeting is a good measure of a military's status within a state. Wendy Hunter, Eroding Military Influence in Brazil (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 95-115; Stanislav Andreski, "On the Peaceful Disposition of Military Dictatorships," Journal ofStrategic Studies 3 no.3 (December 1980): 3-10, 5. 30. A. B. Assensoh and Yvette M. Alex-Assensoh, African Military History and Politics (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 143-168; Christina Fink, Living Silence-Burma under Military Rule (Bangkok: White Lotus, 2001),143-158. 162 NOTES 31. Kostas Messas, "Democratization of Military Regimes: Contending Explanations," Journal of Political and Military Sociology 20, no.2 (Winter 1992): 243-255, 251; Steve Chan, "Democratic Change and Defense Allocation in East Asia," in Frank Harvey and Ben Mor, eds., Conflict in World Politics (Houndsmill: Macmillan, 1998), 273-287; Marie-France Desjardins, Rethinking Confidence-Building Measures: Adelphi Paper 307 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 16, 29. 32. James Macintosh, "Key Elements of a Conceptual Approach to Confidence Building," in James Boutilier, ed., Arms Control in the North Pacific: The Role for Confidence-Building and Verification (Ottawa: Verification Research Unit, Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament Division, External Affairs and International Trade Canada, 1993), 65; Louis Kriesberg, "Consequences of Efforts at Deescalating the Arnerican­ Soviet Conflict," Journal of Political and Military Sociology 14, no.2 (Fall 1986): 215-234, 231. 33. This is therefore not selecting on the dependent variable. Harry Eckstein, "Case Study and Theory in Political Science," in Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, eds., Strategies of Inquiry-Handbook of Political Science, Vol.7(Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1975),79-135,124. 2 MILITARIZATION AND WAR 1. David Stevenson, Armaments and the Coming of War: Europe, 1904-1914 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996),40; Alfred Vagts, Defense and Diplomacy-The Soldier and the Conduct of Foreign Relations (New York: King Crown's Press, 1958), 18. 2. Vagts, 18; Raymond Aron, "Remarks on Lassell's 'The Garrison State,' "Armed Forces and Society 5, no.3 (April 1979): 347-359, 356. 3. Martin Shaw, Post-Military Society (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1991),67. 4. Morris Janowitz and Roger Little, Sociology and the Military Establishment (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965), 31; Isabel Hull, Absolute Destruction (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005),199-203. 5. Harold D. Lasswell, "The Universal Peril: Perpetual Crisis and the Garrison State," in Lyman Bryson, Louis Finkelstein,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israel: Growing Pains at 60
    Viewpoints Special Edition Israel: Growing Pains at 60 The Middle East Institute Washington, DC Middle East Institute The mission of the Middle East Institute is to promote knowledge of the Middle East in Amer- ica and strengthen understanding of the United States by the people and governments of the region. For more than 60 years, MEI has dealt with the momentous events in the Middle East — from the birth of the state of Israel to the invasion of Iraq. Today, MEI is a foremost authority on contemporary Middle East issues. It pro- vides a vital forum for honest and open debate that attracts politicians, scholars, government officials, and policy experts from the US, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. MEI enjoys wide access to political and business leaders in countries throughout the region. Along with information exchanges, facilities for research, objective analysis, and thoughtful commentary, MEI’s programs and publications help counter simplistic notions about the Middle East and America. We are at the forefront of private sector public diplomacy. Viewpoints are another MEI service to audiences interested in learning more about the complexities of issues affecting the Middle East and US rela- tions with the region. To learn more about the Middle East Institute, visit our website at http://www.mideasti.org The maps on pages 96-103 are copyright The Foundation for Middle East Peace. Our thanks to the Foundation for graciously allowing the inclusion of the maps in this publication. Cover photo in the top row, middle is © Tom Spender/IRIN, as is the photo in the bottom row, extreme left.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Policy Analysis
    FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS (listed in catalogue as Theoretical Explanations of Foreign Policy) Pol Sci 530 Jack S. Levy Rutgers University Spring 2014 Hickman 304 848/932-1073 [email protected] http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/levy/ Office Hours: after class and by appointment This seminar focuses on how states formulate and implement their foreign policies. Foreign Policy Analysis is a well-defined subfield within the International Relations field, with its own sections in the International Studies Association and American Political Science Association (Foreign Policy Analysis and Foreign Policy, respectively). Our orientation in this course is more theoretical and process-oriented than substantive or interpretive. We focus on policy inputs and the decision-making process rather than on policy outputs. An important assumption underlying this course is that the processes through which foreign policy is made have a considerable impact on the substantive content of policy. We follow a loose a levels-of-analysis framework to organize our survey of the theoretical literature on foreign policy. We examine rational state actor, bureaucratic/ organizational, institutional, societal, and psychological models. We look at the government decision-makers, organizations, political parties, private interests, social groups, and mass publics that have an impact on foreign policy. We analyze the various constraints within which each of these sets of actors must operate, the nature of their interactions with each other and with the society as a whole, and the processes and mechanisms through which they resolve their differences and formulate policy. Although most (but not all) of our reading is written by Americans and although much of it deals primarily with American foreign policy, most of these conceptual frameworks are much more general and not restricted to the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • International Conflict PS 9450 114 Arts and Science R 6:00-8:30 Fall 2020 University of Missouri
    International Conflict PS 9450 114 Arts and Science R 6:00-8:30 Fall 2020 University of Missouri Syllabus Dr. Stephen L. Quackenbush Office: 305 Professional Building Phone: 882-2082 Office Hours: by appointment (zoom) Email: [email protected] Course Description and Objectives: The purpose of this graduate seminar is to analyze important theories regarding the causes of international conflict and war. This course will: (a) introduce students to a wide range of research on international conflict (focusing on quantitative and formal research) and (b) develop students’ ability to critically evaluate research, and consequently how to design and execute their own research projects. Books (available at University Bookstore): Required: Horowitz, Michael C., Allan C. Stam, and Cali M. Ellis. 2015. Why Leaders Fight. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quackenbush, Stephen L. 2015. International Conflict: Logic and Evidence. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Sechser, Todd S., and Matthew Fuhrmann. 2017. Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weeks, Jessica L. P. 2014. Dictators at War and Peace. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Zagare, Frank C. 2011. The Games of July: Explaining the Great War. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Recommended: Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, Paul F. Diehl, and James D. Morrow, ed. 2012. Guide to the Scientific Study of International Processes. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 1 Coursework and Grading: Participation: The quality of a graduate level seminar depends to
    [Show full text]
  • The University of Texas at Austin Government 388K (39090) Study of International Relations Fall 2014, T Th 2-3.30, CAL 323
    The University of Texas at Austin Government 388K (39090) Study of International Relations Fall 2014, T Th 2-3.30, CAL 323 Patrick J. McDonald BAT 4.136 512.232.1747 [email protected] Office hours: T 9.30-10.30, 3.30-4.00; Th 1-2, 3.30-4.00 DESCRIPTION This graduate course on the study of international relations will survey some of the most prominent contributions to the field during the past thirty years. It is designed to help you prepare to take the Ph.D. preliminary exams for the IR subfield in the Government Department and to help you prepare to execute your own original research projects. To these ends, the course will provide a broad theoretical overview of the field of international relations. The substance of the course is conceptually organized around the question of how social order is constructed and sustained in the international system. Our discussions of theory will focus on the following sources of order: balance of power, hegemony, technology, ideas, norms, international organizations, globalization, and domestic regime type. COURSE REQUIREMENTS There will be four key requirements for this course. First, you will be expected to attend class, keep up with the assigned readings, and participate in our discussions. Second, you will write a series (about 12) of short weekly papers. Third, designed to set up a future research paper, you will write a review of some body of IR literature of your choice. Fourth, during the final exam period, you will turn in an extended “brainstorming” paper that revises one of your weekly writing assignments.
    [Show full text]
  • How Smart and Tough Are Democracies? Reassessing
    How Smart and Tough Are Democracies? How Smart and Tough Alexander B. Downes Are Democracies? Reassessing Theories of Democratic Victory in War The argument that de- mocracies are more likely than nondemocracies to win the wars they ªght— particularly the wars they start—has risen to the status of near-conventional wisdom in the last decade. First articulated by David Lake in his 1992 article “Powerful Paciªsts,” this thesis has become ªrmly associated with the work of Dan Reiter and Allan Stam. In their seminal 2002 book, Democracies at War, which builds on several previously published articles, Reiter and Stam found that democracies win nearly all of the wars they start, and about two-thirds of the wars in which they are targeted by other states, leading to an overall suc- cess rate of 76 percent. This record of democratic success is signiªcantly better than the performance of dictatorships and mixed regimes.1 Reiter and Stam offer two explanations for their ªndings. First, they argue that democracies win most of the wars they initiate because these states are systematically better at choosing wars they can win. Accountability to voters gives democratic leaders powerful incentives not to lose wars because defeat is likely to be punished by removal from ofªce. The robust marketplace of ideas in democracies also gives decisionmakers access to high-quality informa- tion regarding their adversaries, thus allowing leaders to make better deci- sions for war or peace. Second, Reiter and Stam argue that democracies are superior war ªghters, not because democracies outproduce their foes or overwhelm them with powerful coalitions, but because democratic culture produces soldiers who are more skilled and dedicated than soldiers from non- Alexander B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Israeli Experience in Lebanon, 1982-1985
    THE ISRAELI EXPERIENCE IN LEBANON, 1982-1985 Major George C. Solley Marine Corps Command and Staff College Marine Corps Development and Education Command Quantico, Virginia 10 May 1987 ABSTRACT Author: Solley, George C., Major, USMC Title: Israel's Lebanon War, 1982-1985 Date: 16 February 1987 On 6 June 1982, the armed forces of Israel invaded Lebanon in a campaign which, although initially perceived as limited in purpose, scope, and duration, would become the longest and most controversial military action in Israel's history. Operation Peace for Galilee was launched to meet five national strategy goals: (1) eliminate the PLO threat to Israel's northern border; (2) destroy the PLO infrastructure in Lebanon; (3) remove Syrian military presence in the Bekaa Valley and reduce its influence in Lebanon; (4) create a stable Lebanese government; and (5) therefore strengthen Israel's position in the West Bank. This study examines Israel's experience in Lebanon from the growth of a significant PLO threat during the 1970's to the present, concentrating on the events from the initial Israeli invasion in June 1982 to the completion of the withdrawal in June 1985. In doing so, the study pays particular attention to three aspects of the war: military operations, strategic goals, and overall results. The examination of the Lebanon War lends itself to division into three parts. Part One recounts the background necessary for an understanding of the war's context -- the growth of PLO power in Lebanon, the internal power struggle in Lebanon during the long and continuing civil war, and Israeli involvement in Lebanon prior to 1982.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Beyond Military Power: the Symbolic Politics Of
    BEYOND MILITARY POWER: THE SYMBOLIC POLITICS OF CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TRANSFERS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY JENNIFER SPINDEL DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MAY 2018 1 Spindel, Beyond Military Power Copyright, Jennifer Spindel, 2018 ii Spindel, Beyond Military Power For Stephanie Wall, whose love of life, desire to explore the world, and instinct to help others continues to inspire. iii Spindel, Beyond Military Power Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have possible without the support of colleagues, friends, and family – if I tried to list all of them I would likely omit some in error. You know who you are, and you have my deepest gratitude. My biggest debt is owed to my committee members. Without their continued willingness to read and comment on multiple drafts of each chapter, their patience, and their unflagging commitment to the project, I don’t know how I would have finished. First and foremost, I thank my advisor, Ron Krebs, for the motivation, for kicking my ass when I slacked (and, honestly, for kicking my ass in general), and for an unparalleled degree of thoughtfulness, investment, and kindness. He read more drafts of this project than either of us cares to admit. Ron has this amazing ability to distill arguments to their core and to identify promising nuggets of research from otherwise confused and incoherent grad student ramblings. Ron is an extraordinary scholar and mentor, and I am lucky to also call him a co-author and a friend.
    [Show full text]
  • Egypt and the Middle East
    Monitoring Study: British Media Portrayals of Egypt Author: Guy Gabriel - AMW adviser Contact details: Tel: 07815 747 729 E-mail: [email protected] Newspapers monitored: All British national daily broadsheets and tabloids, as well as the Evening Standard Monitoring period: May 2008 - May 2009 1 Table of contents: Egypt & the Middle East Regional Importance Israel Camp David Accords The Gulf Sudan Horn of Africa Diplomacy towards Palestine Before Gaza Conflict 2009 Gaza 2009 Diplomacy The Palestine Border Tunnel Economy Crossing Closures Domestic Egypt Food Religion in Society State Ideology Economy Miscellaneous Domestic Threats Emergency Rule & Internal Security Terrorism Egypt & the West Egypt as an Ally 'War on Terror' Suez Ancient Egypt Influence of Egyptian Art Other Legacies Tourism 2 Egypt & the Middle East Regional Importance Various other Middle Eastern countries are sometimes mentioned in connection with Egypt's regional influence, though very rarely those from North Africa. In terms of Egypt's standing in the Middle East as viewed by the US, a meeting in Cairo, as well as Saudi Arabia and Israel, are "necessary step[s] in the careful path Mr Obama is laying out," notes Times chief foreign affairs commentator Bronwen Maddox (29 May 2009). A "solid" Arab-Israeli peace deal "must include President Mubarak of Egypt," says Michael Levy in the same newspaper (14 May 2009). Regarding a divided Lebanon, the Arab League is "tainted by the commitment of the Saudis and Egyptians to one side rather than the other," according to an Independent editorial (13 May 2008). Egypt appointing an ambassador to Iraq generates interest "not only because it is the most populous Arab country but also because its chargé d'affaires in Baghdad was kidnapped and killed in 2005," writes Guardian Middle East editor Ian Black (2 July 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Vita September 94
    January, 2016 VITA T. Clifton Morgan Department of Political Science MS 24 5104 Aspen Rice University Bellaire, TX 77401 PO Box 1892 713 661 3235 Houston, TX 77251 713 348 3373 713 348 5273 Fax Education Ph.D. in Government, University of Texas at Austin1986 Fields: International Relations, Formal Theory, Methodology M.A. in Government, University of Texas at Austin1980 B.A. in Political Science, University of Oklahoma 1978 Experience Positions Held Albert Thomas Professor of Political Science, Rice University: July 1998 through present Professor of Political Science, Rice University: July 1997 through June 1998 Associate Professor of Political Science, Rice University: July 1991 through June 1997 Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rice University: July 1987 through June 1991 National Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University: September 1989 through June 1990 Assistant Professor of Political Science, Florida State University: August 1985 through June 1987 Administrative Positions Chair, Department of Political Science, Rice University: July 1999 through June 2004 Director, Center for the Study of Institutions and Values, Rice University: July 1997 through June 1999 Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Political Science, Rice University: July 1991through June 1994 and July 1995 through June 1998 Research Books Palmer, Glenn and T. Clifton Morgan (2006) A Theory of Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. 2 Maoz, Zeev, Alex Mintz, T. Clifton Morgan, Glenn Palmer and Richard J. Stoll, eds. (2004) Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations: Methodology in the Study of Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution. Lanham, MD, Lexington Books. Morgan, T. Clifton (1994) Untying the Knot of War: A Theory of Bargaining in International Crises.
    [Show full text]
  • STILL LOOKING for AUDIENCE COSTS Erik Gartzke and Yonatan
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Essex Research Repository STILL LOOKING FOR AUDIENCE COSTS Erik Gartzke and Yonatan Lupu Eighteen years after publication of James Fearon’s article stressing the importance of domestic audience costs in international crisis bargaining, we continue to look for clear evidence to support or falsify his argument. 1 Notwithstanding the absence of a compelling empirical case for or against audience costs, much of the discipline has grown fond of Fearon’s basic framework. A key reason for the importance of Fearon’s claims has been the volume of theories that build on the hypothesis that leaders subject to popular rule are better able to generate audience costs. Scholars have relied on this logic, for example, to argue that democracies are more likely to win the wars they fight, 2 that democracies are more reliable allies, 3 and as an explanation for the democratic peace. 4 A pair of recent studies, motivated largely by limitations in the research designs of previous projects, offers evidence the authors interpret as contradicting audience cost theory. 5 Although we share the authors’ ambivalence about audience costs, we are not convinced by their evidence. What one seeks in looking for audience costs is evidence of a causal mechanism, not just of a causal effect. Historical case studies can be better suited to detecting causal mechanisms Erik Gartzke is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego.Yonatan Lupu is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at Princeton University.
    [Show full text]
  • Military and Strategic Affairs Strategic Affairs Volume 1 | No
    Military Military and Military and Strategic Affairs Strategic Strategic Affairs Volume 1 | No. 2 | October 2009 Volume 1 Volume THREE YEARS SINCE THE SECOND LEBANON WAR CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS | No. 2 No. Opening Remarks Gabriel Siboni | October 2009 The Second Lebanon War: Lessons on the Strategic Level Giora Eiland The IDF in the Years before the Second Lebanon War Moshe Kaplinsky 1701: A Worthless Security Council Resolution? Oded Eran Hizbollah: The Battle over Lebanon Eyal Zisser The Second1 Lebanon War: Achievements and Failures Dan Haloutz The Second Lebanon War as a Watershed Gabriel Siboni and Amir Kulick ÈÓ‡φÔÂÁËÈ·†È¯˜ÁÓφÔÂÎÓ‰ THE INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES INCORPORATING THE JAFFEE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES AT TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY ·È·‡≠Ï˙†˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡ ÈÓ‡φÔÂÁËÈ·†È¯˜ÁÓφÔÂÎÓ‰ THE INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES INCORPORATING THE JAFFEE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES AT TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY ·È·‡≠Ï˙†˙ËÈÒ¯·È‡· Military and Strategic Affairs Volume 1 | No. 2 | October 2009 THREE YEARS SINCE THE SECOND LEBANON WAR CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS CONTENTS Opening Remarks | 3 Gabriel Siboni The Second Lebanon War: Lessons on the Strategic Level | 9 Giora Eiland The IDF in the Years before the Second Lebanon War | 25 Moshe Kaplinsky 1701: A Worthless Security Council Resolution? | 39 Oded Eran Hizbollah: The Battle over Lebanon | 47 Eyal Zisser The Second Lebanon War: Achievements and Failures | 61 Dan Haloutz The Second Lebanon War as a Watershed | 73 Gabriel Siboni and Amir Kulick Military and The purpose of Military and Strategic Affairs is to stimulate Strategic Affairs and enrich the public debate on military issues relating to Israel’s national security.
    [Show full text]
  • Netanyahu's Dilemma: Coalition Tug-Of-War | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 172 Netanyahu's Dilemma: Coalition Tug-of-War Jul 23, 1998 Brief Analysis ith the first high-level, direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 16 months reaching an W impasse just hours after they opened, pressures facing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are heating up. From Gaza come statements that Palestinians will talk only with Washington, which has already declared that the "ball is in Israel's court." From Washington come hints that U.S. mediation has reached its end, suggesting that Netanyahu will now have to vote "yea" or "nay" on the U.S. package deal to restart the Oslo interim process. But perhaps most important of all are the competing tugs on Netanyahu from his own coalition partners. Members of his own Likud party as well as from other parties that comprise his narrow coalition majority -- 61 out of 120 Knesset seats (see Knesset tally at end of article) -- have threatened to withdraw support if he does -- or, in some cases, if he does not -- complete a deal for the next phase of "further redeployment." In a process that has seen deadlines come and go over the years, the Knesset's adjournment date at the end of July is widely considered the final deadline for reaching an FRD agreement. > Predictions of the collapse of Netanyahu's coalition have been made since he first took office; the speculation that Netanyahu has now gotten himself into a bind he can't possibly survive sounds more familiar than convincing. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the various political ultimata Netanyahu faces as he approaches these final days of July.
    [Show full text]