Search

The United States spearheaded the creation of many international organizations and treaties after World War II and maintains a strong record of compliance across several issue areas, yet it also refuses to ratify major international conventions like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Why does the United States often seem to support international law in one way while neglecting or even violating it in another? The United States and International Law: Paradoxes of Support across Contemporary Issues analyzes the seemingly inconsistent U.S. relationship with international law by identifying five types of state support for international law: leadership, consent, internalization, compliance, and enforcement. Each follows different logics and entails unique costs and incentives. Accordingly, the fact that a state engages in one form of support does not presuppose that it will do so across the board. The contributors to this volume examine how and why the United States has engaged in each form of support across twelve issue areas that are central to twentieth- and twenty-first-century U.S. foreign policy: conquest, world courts, war, nuclear proliferation, trade, human rights, war crimes, torture, targeted killing, maritime law, the environment, and cybersecurity. In addition to offering rich substantive discussions of U.S. foreign policy in each of these areas, their findings reveal patterns across the U.S. relationship with international law that shed light on behavior that often seems paradoxical at best, hypocritical at worst. The results help us understand why the United States engages with international law as it does, the legacies of the Trump administration, and what we should expect from the United States under the Biden administration and beyond.

How do international leaders emerge and why are they successful in bringing followers to converge on their positions? The Passion of International Leadership draws on recent advances in political psychology and state-of-the-art research in International Relations to go beyond current knowledge and simplistic accounts of international leadership. It tells surprising and intense stories of policymakers at the head of great powers attempting to cooperate during crisis moments, and uses these stories to challenge commonly held beliefs and intuitions about international leadership. Beauregard explores international leadership in four cases of transatlantic cooperation when Western policymakers were confronted with foreign conflicts, like civil or secessionist wars. He provides a fascinating study of the recognition of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia during the wars in Yugoslavia; the peace mediation during the Russia-Georgia war in 2008; the adoption of economic sanctions against Russia over the conflict in Ukraine; and finally, cooperation on striking against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The book argues that leaders are driven by their convictions, and that they must strike a balance between the intense emotions associated with their beliefs and their need to represent a broader community. At the same time as they seek to bring followers on board by persuading them, they need to pay attention to emotionally contagious and resonant events that can alter the course of international cooperation.

When does a reigning great power of the international system supplement military containment of a challenging power by restricting its economic exchanges with that state? Scholars of great power politics have traditionally focused on examining a reigning power's military containment of a challenging power. In direct contrast, Compound Containment demonstrates that these conventional studies are flawed without a sound understanding of the multilayered aspects of containment strategy in great power politics. Since economic capacity and military power are intimately linked to one another, countering a challenging power requires addressing both economic and military dimensions. Nonetheless, this nexus of security and economy in a reigning power's response to a challenging power cannot be explained by traditional theories that dominate research in international security. Author Dong Jung Kim fills a gap in the scholarship on great power competition by investigating when a reigning power will make its military containment of a challenging power “compound” by simultaneously employing restrictive economic measures. Its main theoretical claims are corroborated by an analysis of key historical cases of reigning power-challenging power competition. This book also offers policy prescriptions for the United States by examining whether the United States is in a position to complement military containment of China with restrictive economic measures.

As we face new challenges from climate change and the rise of populism in Western politics and beyond, there is little doubt that we are entering a new configuration of world politics. Driven by nostalgia for past certainties or fear of what is coming next, references to normalcy have been creeping into political discourse, with people either vying for a return to a past normalcy or coping with the new normal. This book traces main discourses and practices associated with normalcy in world politics. Visoka and Lemay-Hébert mostly focus on how dominant states and international organizations try to manage global affairs through imposing normalcy over fragile states, restoring normalcy over disaster-affected states, and accepting normalcy over suppressive states. They show how discourses and practices come together in constituting normalization interventions and how in turn they play in shaping the dynamics of continuity and change in world politics.

Forging the World brings together leading scholars in International Relations (IR) and Communication Studies to investigate how, when, and why strategic narratives shape the structure, politics, and policies of the global system. Put simply, strategic narratives are tools that political actors employ to promote their interests, values, and aspirations for the international order by managing expectations and altering the discursive environment. These narratives define “who we are” and “what kind of world order we want.”

In addition to the explicit goal of advancing mutual economic interests, regional economic organizations (REOs) are intended to foster regional cohesion and peace. Drawing on a data set detailing the institutional features of 25 REOs established during the 1980s and 1990s, complemented by a case study of ASEAN, Yoram Z. Haftel investigates the factors that affect REOs'ability to mitigate interstate military conflict. He finds fewer interstate conflicts among REO members who have developed high levels of economic integration and who cultivate regular interaction among member-states'representatives. Haftel concludes that, with an appropriate institutional design and fully implemented agreements, an REO can indeed play a role in mitigating interstate conflict and make a meaningful contribution to regional peace.

What explains variance in the policy of Great Powers toward drug traffickers, pirates, and terrorists? Does counterharm policy depend just on the degree of material harm caused to a powerful state by such nonstate actors, or do normative, moral, and emotional factors also play a role? Why did the U.S., for example, harshly punish al Qaeda after 9/11 but avoid taking similar forceful measures against foreign drug traffickers who enable the deaths of thousands of Americans each year by selling highly illegal and harmful narcotics? Oded Löwenheim argues that the answers to these questions lie in the social construction of agents of harm.'Predators and Parasites shows, with impressive scholarship, that world politics is characterized by a cartel-like structure that gives states monopolies of legitimate violence. Sovereignty and a global structure of authority are not mutually exclusive. In a sense, anarchy is in the eye of the beholder.'—Robert O. Keohane, Princeton University'An invaluable contribution to the growing body of constructivist literature in international relations and should be read by anyone interested in the use of force in contemporary global politics... Goes a long way toward explaining America's War on Terror against al Qaeda and the Taliban and the widespread global support for this policy, as well as the highly negative global reaction to America's own intervention in Iraq and its norm-threatening doctrine of preemption.'—Richard W. Mansbach, Iowa State University'Prepare to be boarded! Löwenheim delivers an essential constructivist tutorial on Great Power sovereignty and authority. An intellectual swashbuckler!'—Rodney Bruce Hall, Oxford University'Rejecting preventive war for moral consistency and just conduct, a fascinating discussion of pirates, terrorists, and revenge.'—Jon Mercer, University of Washington Oded Löwenheim is Lecturer in the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

This outstanding book is the first to decisively define the relationship between political psychology and international relations. Written in a style accessible to undergraduates as well as specialists, McDermott's book makes an eloquent case for the importance of psychology to our understanding of global politics. In the wake of September 11, the American public has been besieged with claims that politics is driven by personality. Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Kim Chong-Il, Ayatollah Khameinei-America's political rogues'gallery is populated by individuals whose need for recognition supposedly drives their actions on the world stage. How does personality actually drive politics? And how is personality, in turn, formed by political environment? Political Psychology in International Relations provides students and scholars with the analytical tools they need to answer these pressing questions, and to assess their implications for policy in a real and sometimes dangerous world.

In The Behavioral Origins of War, D. Scott Bennett and Allan C. Stam analyze systemic, binary, and individual factors in order to evaluate a wide variety of theories about the origins of war. Challenging the view that theories of war are nothing more than competing explanations for observed behavior, this expansive study incorporates variables from multiple theories and thus accounts for war's multiplicity of causes. While individual theories offer partial explanations for international conflict, only a valid set of theories can provide a complete explanation. Bennett and Stam's unconventional yet methodical approach opens the way for cumulative scientific progress in international relations. D. Scott Bennett is Professor of Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University. Allan C. Stam is Associate Professor in the Government Department at Dartmouth College.

The claim that open trade promotes peace has sparked heated debate among scholars and policymakers for centuries. Until recently, however, this claim remained untested and largely unexplored. Economic Interdependence and International Conflict clarifies the state of current knowledge about the effects of foreign commerce on political-military relations and identifies the avenues of new research needed to improve our understanding of this relationship. The contributions to this volume offer crucial insights into the political economy of national security, the causes of war, and the politics of global economic relations. Edward D. Mansfield is Hum Rosen Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the University of Pennsylvania. Brian M. Pollins is Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University and a Research Fellow at the Mershon Center.

How does regional interdependence influence the prospects for conflict, integration, and democratization? Some researchers look at the international system at large and disregard the enormous regional variations. Others take the concept of sovereignty literally and treat each nation-state as fully independent. Kristian Skrede Gleditsch looks at disparate zones in the international system to see how conflict, integration, and democracy have clustered over time and space. He argues that the most interesting aspects of international politics are regional rather than fully global or exclusively national. Differences in the local context of interaction influence states'international behavior as well as their domestic attributes. In All International Politics Is Local, Gleditsch clarifies that isolating the domestic processes within countries cannot account for the observed variation in distribution of political democracy over time and space, and that the likelihood of transitions is strongly related to changes in neighboring countries and the prior history of the regional context. Finally, he demonstrates how spatial and statistical techniques can be used to address regional interdependence among actors and its implications. Kristian Skrede Gleditsch is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego.

Forty-five prominent scholars engage in self-critical, state-of-the-art reflection on international studies to stimulate debates about successes and failures and to address the larger question of progress in the discipline. Written especially for the collection, these essays are in hardcover in the form of an easy-to-use handbook, and in paperback as a number of separate titles, each of which consists of a particular thematic cluster to merge with the range of topics taught in undergraduate and graduate courses in international studies. The themes addressed are realism, institutionalism, critical perspectives, feminist theory and gender studies, methodology (formal modeling, quantitative, and qualitative), foreign policy analysis, international security and peace studies, and international political economy. This collection provides an accessible and wide-ranging survey of the issues in the field as well as an invaluable bibliography, and will undoubtedly determine the shape of future research in international studies for the millennium. Paperbacks for course adoption: Realism and Institutionalism in International Studies Michael Brecher and Frank P. Harvey, Editors Conflict, Security, Foreign Policy, and International Political Economy:Past Paths and Future Directions in International Studies Michael Brecher and Frank P. Harvey, Editors Evaluating Methodology in International Studies Frank P. Harvey and Michael Brecher, Editors Critical Perspectives in International Studies Frank P. Harvey and Michael Brecher, Editors Contributors are: Steve J. Brams, Davis B. Bobrow, Michael Cox, Robert W. Cox, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Joseph M. Grieco, Ernst B. Haas, Peter M. Haas, Kal J. Holsti, Ole R. Holsti, Patrick James, Robert O. Keohane, Edward A. Kolodziej, Louis Kriesberg Robert T. Kudrle, David A. Lake, Yosef Lapid, Russell Leng, Jack S. Levy, L. H. M. Ling, Zeev Maoz, Lisa L. Martin, John J. Mearsheimer, Manus I. Midlarsky, Linda B. Miller, Helen Milner, Michael Nicholson, Joseph Nye, V. Spike Peterson, Jan Jindy Pettman, James Lee Ray, James Rosenau, Harvey Starr, J. David Singer, Steve Smith, Christine Sylvester, J. Ann Tickner, John Vasquez, Yaacov Y. I. Vertzberger, R. B. J. Walker, Stephen G. Walker, Jonathan Wilkenfeld, Oran Young, Marysia Zalewski, and Dina A. Zinnes. Michael Brecher is R. B. Angus Professor of Political Science, McGill University, and former president of the International Studies Association. Frank P. Harvey is Professor of Political Science and Director, Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Dalhousie University.

Realism and Institutionalism in International Studies represents a unique collection of original essays by foremost scholars in the field of International Studies. Six essays advocate, critique, or revise Realism, the theoretical paradigm that explains international politics by emphasizing security competition and war among states. The remaining four essays address Institutionalism, the paradigm that offers explanations for the formation, maintenance, variation, and significance of international institutions. The authors reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches and suggest research agendas for the future. Together, this volume provides an accessible and wide-ranging survey of the issues concerning two major paradigms in International Studies. This volume will be of interest to scholars and students alike and will undoubtedly determine the shape of future research.

No study of international relations is complete without consideration of foreign policy processes and an understanding of state security, conflict in global politics, and the relationship between the world economy and international behavior. Conflict, Security, Foreign Policy, and International Political Economy: Past Paths and Future Directions in International Studies consists of twelve original essays that point out the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches in these research areas as well as suggest agendas for future research. See table of contents and excerpts. Frank P. Harvey is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University. Michael Brecher is the R.B. Angus Professor of Political Science at McGill University and past president of the International Studies Association. Millennial Reflections on International Studies This volume is part of the Millennial Reflections on International Studies project in which forty-five prominent scholars engage in self-critical, state-of-the-art reflection on international studies to stimulate debates about successes and failures and to address the larger questions of progress in the discipline. Other paperbacks from this project: Realism and Institutionalism in International Studies Evaluating Methodology Critical Perspectives in International Studies The full collection of essays is available in the handbook Millennial Reflections on International Studies.

When the Stakes Are High is based on the premise that powers have continually played a decisive role in international conflicts. Consequently, one of the key questions concerns the conditions that are likely to trigger or abate dispute escalation into major power conflicts. In this book, Vesna Danilovic provides a rigorous theoretical and empirical analysis of these conditions. Since the most precarious and common form of dispute between major powers arises over third nations, the author's primary focus is on so-called extended deterrence. In this type of deterrence, one side attempts to prevent another side from initiating or escalating conflict with a third nation. When the Stakes Are High addresses such questions as: When is extended deterrence likely to be effective? What happens if deterrence fails? In what circumstances is war likely to result from a deterrence failure? The author's main argument is that a major power's national interests, which shape the inherent credibility of threats and which are shaped by various regional stakes, set the limits to the relevance of other factors, which have received greater scholarly attention in the past. Strongly supported by the empirical findings, the arguments in this work draw important implications for conflict theory and deterrence policy in the post-Cold War era. This book will appeal to the reader interested in international relations, in general, and in theories of international conflict, deterrence, causes of wars, great power behavior, and geopolitics, in particular. Vesna Danilovic is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Texas A&M University.

The Power-Conflict Story explains patterns of behavior in major world rivalries since 1816. Kelly M. Kadera carefully lays out the dynamic connections between two rival nations'power relationship and their conflictual interactions with one another. Rivals accumulate power and use conflict as a method of reducing their opponent's power level. But conflict is costly because it invites reciprocation from the opponent who has similar motives. Applying the formal model that she has developed, Kadera makes some interesting and novel predictions about which types of rivals win and what strategies they use. The empirical record on national power levels and interstate conflict convincingly support these predictions. Examples include the rise of the United States as a world power and the corresponding fall of British hegemony near the turn of the last century; Germany's unsuccessful attempt to overtake Britain during the Second World War; and Russia's rivalry with China during the early 1900s. One of the central contributions of the book's explanation of interstate rivalry is the integration of two opposing schools of thought, balance of power theory and power transition theory. This integration is accomplished by the author's dynamic formal model that emphasizes fluctuations in conflict behavior under different power relationships as well as shifts in power levels resulting from natural growth and resource depletion. The formal model and its analysis are presented in a conversational manner, making it accessible to the reader. ThePower-Conflict Story will appeal to students and scholars of international relations, world history, formal modeling, applied mathematics, numerical methods, and research methodology. Kelly M. Kadera is Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Iowa.

This book provides the first detailed analysis of international rivalries, the long-standing and often violent confrontations between the same pairs of states. The book addresses conceptual components of rivalries and explores the origins, dynamics, and termination of the most dangerous form of rivalry--enduring rivalry--since 1816. Paul Diehl and Gary Goertz identify 1166 rivalries since 1816. They label sixty-three of those as enduring rivalries. These include the competitions between the United States and Soviet Union, India and Pakistan, and Israel and her Arab neighbors. The authors explain how rivalries form, evolve, and end. The first part of the book deals with how to conceptualize and measure rivalries and presents empirical patterns among rivalries in the period 1816-1992. The concepts derived from the study of rivalries are then used to reexamine two central pieces of international relations research, namely deterrence and'democratic peace'studies. The second half of the book builds an explanation of enduring rivalries based on a theory adapted from evolutionary biology,'punctuated equilibrium.'The study of international rivalries has become one of the centerpieces of behavioral research on international conflict. This book, by two of the scholars who pioneered such studies, is the first comprehensive treatment of the subject. It will become the standard reference for all future studies of rivalries. Paul F. Diehl is Professor of Political Science and University Distinguished Teacher/Scholar, University of Illinois. He is the coeditor of Reconstructing Realpolitik and coauthor of Measuring the Correlates of War. Gary Goertz is Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Arizona, and is the coauthor with Paul Diehl of Territorial Change and International Conflict.

Explaining change in the behavior of states and other international actors is at the core of the study of international relations. The proficiency with which states respond to changes in the international environment has important consequences for world peace and the world economy as well as domestic politics and well being. One way to understand changes in behavior is to consider whether and how states learn. Key to understanding this is considering how the groups responsible for making decisions learn and make decisions. Andrew Farkas presents an evolutionary theory of how states adjust their foreign policies in response to international changes. Employing both formal models and computer simulations, Farkas explores the relative efficacy of a wide range of alternative strategies for dealing with unanticipated changes in the international environment, and goes a long way toward reconciling the success of rational choice modeling with criticism from psychological studies of decision making. Farkas looks at the way small groups charged with making policy decisions work. He explicitly models the process of search and policy selection. He demonstrates how a group of disparate individuals can act as if it were a unitary rational actor and provides the first endogenous account of when and why groups curtail their search for satisfactory policies. Farkas uses the general model to explore the effects of different institutional designs on the decisionmaking process. This book will be of interest to scholars of international relations, learning models and group processes. Andrew Farkas is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University.