INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy sutwnitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI' NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy avaiiabie. UMI’ INTERPRETING INTERVENTIONS: IDENTITY, IMAGES, AND THE PERCEPTION OF NORMATIVE BEHAVIOR DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Vaughn Parnell Shannon, MA, BA The Ohio State University 2001 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Richard Herrmann, Adviser Professor Ted Hopf Adviser Professor Randall SchweOer Political Science Graduate Program UMI Number: 3031265 UMI UMI Microform 3031265 Copyright 2002 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. Ali rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT I examine bow states perceive and judge military interventions in world politics. Conventional approaches assume observers perceive a state’s actions much the same, and that judgment varies either on the basis of material interest considerations or on the normative basis of intervention. I argue for a theory of “ethnocentric inference” that suggests differences in state identity leads to differences m the understanding, and thus evaluation, of interventions. I argue that evaluations of acts and actors are nonnatively driven, as constructivists suggest and materialists overlook. But I go further to argue that the interpretation of behavior interacts situationaUy with a state’s self-image and image of the intervener. I trace this influence of identity and im%e in a series of case studies of US and US-led military interventions in the Post-Cold War era. I look at countries with various identities and images and how these effect interpretations of mterventions justified on normative grounds. I conclude that perception is heavily influenced by prior ideational baggage, especial^ in situations of normative ambiguity. The clearer that an act is socially (mjappropriate, the more perceptions converge; the more ambiguous the act, the more divergence in perceptions occurs along the lines o f identity and hnage. In terms o f intervention behavior and the United States’ image abroad, these conclusions suggest that UN-authorized multilateralism deflates critics, whereas unilateralism empowers critics and creates negative hnages that could lead to a challenge to US power. Dedicated to my mother and 6tber, without whom none of this extended foray into higher education could have been physically, mentally, spiritually or financially possible. lU ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Richard Herrmann for serving as adviser, mentor, role, colleague, and collaborator during my stay at Ohio State. His input into this project was invaluable tough love that certainly improved the project significantly. Thanks as well to Ted Hopf for the intellectual inspiration firom the constructivist side, and to Randy Schweller for keeping me grounded in the real(ist?) world with regards to my research and the process of academic politics. Together, this dissertation committee covers the spectrum of thought in IR, and the push and pull of it can only have helped the final product. 1 also would like to thank others with whom I've shared my work, particularly Amy Gurowitz, who provided usefiil comments early in the project. This work also benefited from a spirited dialogue at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, where a portion of the dissertation was presented as a paper. Then, of course, there are also the people unfortunate enough to have had to endure me durmg the tortured path of self-disciplined dissertation research and writing, most notably my lovety and brilliant wife, Amanda, who proves that love is indeed “patient and kind.” Thank you. IV VITA February 10,1971 Bom - Cleveland, Ohio 1993 B.A. Political Science, Ohio University 1995 M j A Political Science, Virginia Tech 1995 - 2001 Graduate Assistant and Presidential Fellow, The Ohio State University 2001 - Visiting instructor, Miami University PUBLICATIONS Richard EC Herrmann and Vaughn P. Shannon, “Defending International Norms: The Role of Obligation, Material Interest, and Perception in Decision Making.” International Organization 55(3):621-54 (2001). Vai^hn P. Shannon, “Norms are What States Make of Them: The Political Psychology of Norm Violation.” International Studies Quarterly 44(2)-.293-316 (2000). FIELDS OF STUDY Mtgor Field: Political Science TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ü. Dedication......................................................................................................................iiL Ackoowledgments ......................................................................................................... iv. Vita................................................................................................................................................................................................................. V. List of Tables .................................................................................................................ix. List of Figures ................................................................................................................x. Chapters: 1. Introduction: Interpreting Interventions ..................................................................I 1.1 Overview ........................................................................................1 1.2 Focus of Study.............................................................................. 7 1.2.1 Scope Conditions ...........................................................................7 1.2.2 The Approach of This Study ........................................................ 12 12.3 Universal or Unique? A Thhd Way to Approaching Actors ......... 14 1.3 Significance ................................................................................. 21 1.4 Plan o f the Dissertation ................................................................ 26 2. A Theory of Ethnocentric Inference .................................................................. 29 2.1 Overview ..................................................................................... 29 2.2 Prevailing Approaches ................................................................. 30 22.1 Rationalist Approaches ................................................................ 32 2.2.2 Ideational Approaches ................................................................. 38 22.3 The Social Actor Model: The Case for Ideas and Agency ............ 45 2.3 The Theory o f Ethnocentrk; Inference .......................................... 52 2.3.1 Assumptfons and Concepts ......................................................... 52 2.3.2 The Constniai Phase: Evaluating Intervention ............................. 63 2.3.3 The Judgment Phase: Evaluating Interveners ............................... 72 VI 2.3.4 Rival Theoretical Expectatrâns .................................................... 76 2.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................83 3. Identifying Identities: Method and Presentation of Identity Profiles of Observer States................................................................................................................. 84 3.1 Overview ..................................................................................... 84 3.2 Testing ......................................................................................... 85 3.2.1 Independent Variables: Identity and Image .......................85 3.2.2 Dependent Variables: Evaluation and Judgment ............... 88 3.2.3 Case and Country Selection ............................................. 89 3.2.4 Limits, Caveats and Responses ........................................ 94 3.3 Identifying Observer States ..........................................................98 3.3.1 Revisiting Identity and Images ...................................................