What influences decision-makers to decide to attack another country when AND DOVES HAWKS they are on the brink of war? The main aim of this study is to detect if there is a causal mechanism underlying the decision to attack another country when on the brink of war, and whether or not this mechanism differs between regime-types. It investigates whether or not regime-type, the nature of the conflict, the power used, and hawkish beliefs of decision-makers matter in this decision. DEMOCRATIC PEACE By addressing this question from a political psychological and comparative perspective, this dissertation tests the microfoundations of democratic peace theory simultaneously with alternative theories of decision-making during conflict resolution.The core analytical instrument is a decision-making DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY REVISITED experiment, executed in the US, Russia, and China. The experimental T results are triangulated with a large N study, and a case study. HEORY FEMKE E. BAKKER The overall results show that although the democratic peace as an empirical R EVISITE regularity might still be valid, the theoretical arguments to explain why democracies do not fight with each other turn out to have been built on D empirically unsupported foundations. This study argues that an actor- based approach towards decision-making processes within international relations offers important insights to the more structured-based theories of international relations. It thereby convincingly shows that the individual matters, also in international relations. F EMKE E. B AKKER Hawks and Doves Democratic Peace Theory Revisited i Photo cover: Paul Reeves Photography Photo back: Femke E. Bakker Cover design: Print Service Ede Print: Print Service Ede © 2018 Femke E. Bakker. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission from the proprietor © 2018 Femke E. Bakker. Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand, of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm of op enigerlei wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen, of op enige andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de rechthebbende. ii Hawks and Doves Democratic Peace Theory Revisited Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van Rector Magnificus prof. mr. C.J.J.M. Stolker, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op dinsdag 15 mei 2018 klokke 15:00 uur door Femke Elisabeth Bakker geboren te Bergen op Zoom in 1972 iii Promotor: Prof. dr. Petr Kopecký Co-Promotoren: Dr. Niels van Willigen Dr. Michael Meffert Promotiecommissie: Prof. dr. Rudy Andeweg Prof. dr. Dirk DeBièvre University of Antwerpen Prof. dr. Margaret Hermann Syracuse University Prof. dr. Juliet Kaarbo University of Edinburgh Prof. dr. Wolfgang Wagner Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Paranimfen: Maudy Lohaus Senna Maatoug This research has been sponsored by Leiden University Fund/van Steeden, by the International Peace Research Association Foundation (IPRAF), and by the Laboratory for Comparative Social Research (LCSR). iv Acknowledgements Never have I worked on a project with such eagerness and fun as on my dissertation. I have learned so much about doing research, about writing, and, in particular, about myself. As a scholar and as a human being. I have been blessed with the help and focus of others on my way, and each of them has contributed in their own unique way to my thinking, my writing and my understanding during this process. I enjoyed working with an inspiring team of three great supervisors who have supported me unanimous. They respected my autonomy as a scholar, and always provided me with the feeling of trust that my project would work out as I wanted it to. Moreover, each brought their own expertise: Petr Kopecký’s theoretical clarity, and focus on the bigger picture, Niels van Willigen’s vast knowledge and understanding of IR theories and foreign policy making, and Michael Meffert’s methodological rigor and expertise in experiments have been of priceless support during our always fruitful (and cheerful) feedback sessions. Thank you so much. To organize and conduct the experiments, I have had tremendous help of many people. I thank Honorata Mazepus, Aleksandrina Skvortsova, Rebekah Tromble, Ting Luo, and Zheng Li for the translations of my scenario’s into Russian, English and Mandarin Chinese (respectively) of native quality, and Agata Mazepus for graphically mapping out my experimental world. I thank Eduard Ponarin, Tatiana Karabchuk, Ronald Inglehart, and Christian Welzel of HSE St Petersburg and the Laboratory of Comparative Social Research for their help to conduct the experiments in Russia, and Olesya Volchenko , Nina Iltschenko, Violetta Korsunova, Pavel Savchenko for their lingering research assistance on the Russian site. I thank Robin Best, Gregory Robinson, and Jonathan Krasno of Binghamton University for their help to execute the experiments in the US. And I thank Chunlong Lu of the Chinese University for Political Science and Law in Beijing, Fei Gao and Dani Stockman for their help to conduct the experiments in China, and Hua Zhang, Hong Hdadan, and Qi Ding for their devoted work as research assistants. I thank Ingrid van Heeringen for her administrative support and advice during the funding process. I love to think out loud, preferably together with others. I have been so lucky to have met a lot of people on my way that were also willing to brainstorm with me about my research, and I am so appreciative of them. I hereby would like to thank Dan Thomas, Dirk DeBièvre, Honorata Mazepus, Paul van Hooft, Michael Doyle, Margaret Hermann, Arjen Boin, Fransje Molenaar, Senna Maatoug, Jos Meester, Sybren Hardiek, Rozemarijn Lubbe, Frank de Zwart, Wouter Veenendaal, Laurenz Ennser- Jedenastik, Danie Stockmann, Maudy Lohaus, Donald Blondin, Huib Pellikaan, Maria Spirova, Kavita Heystek-Ziemann, Patrick Overeem, Ingrid van Biezen, Tom Louwerse, Tim Mickler, Joshua Kertzer, and participants of several conferences for the valuable discussions we have held. v And last but not least, I am so appreciative of some wonderful people in my life. Best daughters in the world: Nili & Levia. My dear friends Eytan, Wim, Nienke, Melinda, Maudy, Jeannette, Roos, Lejla, Patty, Abraham, Esther, and my beloved Leonard: thank each and all of you! Each of you has contributed in your own unique and special way to me being able to write this dissertation (and you know what I mean!). vi Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. v List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................ 1 1.1 Not another research of the democratic peace?! ................................................................ 1 1.2 War or no war? That is the question. ................................................................................ 2 1.3 How is this research conducted? ...................................................................................... 3 1.4 Scientific and societal relevance ....................................................................................... 4 1.5 The chapters that follow .................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2 Individuals under Threat ........................................................ 9 2.1 At the roots of democratic peace theory ........................................................................... 9 2.2 What you believe is what you see ................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Liberal and Constructivist explanations ................................................................... 11 2.2.2. Realist and other system-level explanations .......................................................... 27 2.3 Individuals matter .......................................................................................................... 30 2.3.1 Individual level explanations ................................................................................... 32 2.4 Individuals under threat ................................................................................................. 33 2.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework, Concepts & Methods ....................... 37 3.1 Threat perception ............................................................................................................ 37 3.2 The interstate conflict ..................................................................................................... 39 3.3 Possible moderating factors ........................................................................................... 42 3.4 Concept of military action .............................................................................................. 52 3.5