Search

In this paper I show that the hypothesis of a "separate" or dyadic peace among democracies was first developed by Giuseppe Mazzini, and not by Immanuel Kant, as present-day international relations theorists commonly assume. Giuseppe Mazzini, the inspirational leader of the Italian struggle for national independence, ranked among the most influential European public figures of the mid-19th century. He also made a seminal contribution to the development of modern liberal internationalist thought. Yet he has largely fallen into oblivion today among international relations scholars and political theorists. A systematic reappraisal of Mazzini's international political thought should allow for some fresh insights on the causes of peace among democracies: unlike other liberal thinkers, Mazzini did not believe that democracies are inherently peaceful. He simply thought that Europe's vulnerable democracies would be natural allies in the struggle against despots and other enemies of liberty. Europe's new democracies, Mazzini argued, would thus establish a "collective defense pact" among themselves. This would lead to increased inter-democratic cooperation, trust, and a gradual overcoming of the security dilemma among democracies.The essence of Mazzini's causal argument can explain the emergence of a "separate peace" among liberal democracies since the end of WWII: the western democracies initially created a defensive security alliance under American leadership, to protect their freedom from what they perceived as an expansionist communist threat. The institutionalization of this western alliance promoted increasingly close contacts and exchanges among the western democracies, with a concomitant progressive reduction of the security dilemma among them. Mazzini's causal explanation is logically coherent and more consistent with the historical evidence than alternative explanations, based on democratic institutional constraints or on the "externalization" of democratic norms in foreign affairs. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, the most crucial element of growing inequality based on gender disparity can be assessed by examining the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) commonly referred to as workfare. Workfare, an important aspect of the neoliberal model of welfare restructuring, compels all welfare recipients, including single mothers with young children, to work for their welfare check. The neoliberal model is linked to globalization and the reforming of welfare in order to adhere to the needs of multinationals. One such pressing need, in particular, in the face of such free trade agreements as the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and more recently, the Dominican Republic Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), is for cheap labor. Workfare provides an underclass of labor that is essentially trapped in jobs that pay well below the minimum wage. With the implementation of workfare, business interest has framed the state's agenda. Hence, an expanding welfare state is not in the interest of business. In the United States, reliable data shows that a large percent of welfare recipients are single mothers. And it is for this particular reason, I think, that a feminist analysis of globalization, women, work, and welfare is more crucial than ever. In this paper, I will demonstrate the impact of workfare on single mothers receiving welfare assistance. I will conclude that job-training programs that would enhance future job opportunities for single mothers are more urgent than ever. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does the scope of international agreements affect the durability of those agreements? This paper looks at issue linkage inmilitary alliances, to see if alliances with economic stipulations in their treaties are more durable than alliances without such stipulations.If alliances with economic stipulations are found to be more durable, this would be important for a number of reasons. Of most theoretical import is that issue linkage in agreements might bolster or help maintain relationships between states. This provides support for institutionalist arguments regarding how institutions affect state behavior. Also, from a policy standpoint, the finding might encourage states interested in long-term security guarantees to enter alliances with scopes expanded beyond strictly military issues. I extend Fearon's analysis of the shadow of the future to describe the mechanism responsible for this outcome as "the shadow of the scope." A broader scope - similar to an expected long-term commitment - might initially delay or deter cooperation, but once accomplished, the agreement could be expected to be more durable than agreements with narrower scopes. Initial results suggest that alliances with economic stipulations are indeed more durable, ceteris paribus, than alliances with military-only jurisdiction. This result holds even after taking into consideration the possibility of endogeneity - antecedent conditions which might have affected the structure or very existence of the alliances. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a schedule for a conference related to international politics on topics including nuclear weapons employment policy, political dissatisfaction and attitudes toward International Organization in Europe and the U.S., and public administration.

When leaders initiate and escalate international conflict, there are often tangible and immediate domestic consequences. Both the democratic peace perspective and diversionary theory suggest that leaders are constrained (or encouraged) to participate in international conflict because of an anticipated mass reaction to the conflict based on attributes of the target state. Yet research has not shown that the public reacts favorably to certain types of targets, as diversionary theory would suggest, but rejects other targets, as the democratic peace suggests. In this paper I suggest that a rational and informed public recognizes the incentives for leaders to divert the nation by acting aggressively abroad during times of domestic instability. I argue that a rational public will only provide a boost in popularity when either it is obvious that the conflict is not for diversionary purposes or it is against a state with important geo-strategic interests. I test these hypotheses using time series data from six advanced democracies. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How much variance is there in the foreign policy beliefs of our current president, George W. Bush? Extending on a methodology developed in our piece on President Clinton's worldview in Presidential Studies Quarterly's summer 1998 edition, we seek to answer the following questions:First, what is President Bush's image of the international system in his first term? Second, does his image remain stable or does it change over time? Third, if his worldview does change, what factors help to account for this change? George Bush came to the presidency in 2001 with a lack of foreign policy experience and a desire to focus on domestic as opposed to foreign policy. With the 9-11 attacks, however, this domestic politics first emphasis seems to have changed. To seek answers to our questions, we content analyze all public statements of President Bush during his first term as found in the Index to Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents. We develop a model that incorporates system characteristics, international environmental variables, domestic political factors and personality characteristics to explain the variance in President Bush's foreign policy emphasis and then estimate them using pooled time series analysis.We believe the paper addresses questions of real interest and importance to scholars of foreign policy making and the presidency including basic questions about the impact of domestic politics, system structure and personality characteristics. The questions are answered in a methodologically sophisticated and appropriate way that goes beyond case studies or anecdotal example. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In other work I have argued that states may have reason to maintain and promote the fundamental institutions and interests of other states if those regimes are minimally just. Drawing upon an Aristotelian account of self-interest for inspiration, I have argued that the same reasons that justify state self-regard also justify regard for other states (even apart from reasons of security or economic utility). I suggest, based on this claim, that states, solely because of their character, may be justified in entering into different levels of friendship depending on the stability of the regimes in question and their historical ties and cultural affinities. In this paper, I consider how the idea of international friendships compares and contrasts to the kinds of Kantian internationalism offered by Michael Doyle and John Rawls. The vision of international friendship that I have defended in my previous work resembles these positions insofar as interstate conduct should be linked to the domestic character of states. This idea is most vigorously advanced in Doyle's account of democratic peace and Rawls' account of the law of peoples. I argue that despite important similarities, the notion of international friendship reinserts the possibilities for politics and conflict between close allies that are absent in both Doyle's and Rawls's formulations. Differential levels of concern between friends, the possibilities of internal corruption, the ambivalent relationship between utility and friendship, and the pluralistic, open-ended character of what constitutes a fully just or democratic regime, all generate possibilities for intervention, miscalculation and the perception of betrayal. International friendships bring with them their own risks that call into question the perpetuity of any pacific union. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At least since the early 20th century, the United States has been gripped by fundamental questions about its proper place in the world. Should America intervene in other nations' affairs, or isolate itself from their difficulties? Cooperate in international institutions or aggressively assert its sovereignty? Make war or make peace? These dueling conceptions of America's place have come to fore repeatedly, such as when Congress considered whether to support a World Court in the 1920s, whether to provide massive post-War aid to Europe in the 1940s, or whether to provide military and economic assistance to halt communism during the Cold War decades of the 1950s and 1960s. Although foreign policy is a stereotypically "male" domain, U.S. women's groups have played a central role in nearly all of the important foreign policy debates of the 20th century. Over many decades, women's leaders marched up to Capitol Hill to take a stand - typically for international engagement and global peace. And yet, by the 1990s and early 2000s, women's groups had almost completely disengaged from foreign affairs. Why? Using more than 100 years of data on women's groups' Congressional testimony, this paper will examine the rise of foreign policy on women's organizational agenda - and then the dramatic fall. In examining women's historical role in American foreign affairs, this study will unravel the contemporary puzzle of Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who set up camp outside President Bush's ranch to protest the war that killed her son and was subsequently vilified as a "lone nut" out of step with mainstream sentiment on the Iraqi invasion. This study will suggest that Cindy Sheehan is not so much a lone nut as just alone. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the layout of the chessboard shapes the nature of the game, so too does the geography of the earth provide the most basic influence upon the behavior of states. This paper explores the extent to which geography has affected the development of IR, identifying and analyzing the three main research programs that emerged over the course of the century: classical geopolitics, geographic correlates of war, and critical geopolitics. Although the three programs differ radically in their goals, assumptions, methods, standards of evidence and intended audience, they share a common string of disappointing results. Those conclusions that were most interesting have proven to be untrue; those that seem to be true have not been very interesting. In some ways, the demise of political geography can be read as a scientific success story. The inability of the various research programs either to articulate a coherent agenda, provide empirical support for its ideas, advance our understanding of international politics, or even generate testable hypotheses has relegated the would-be subfield to the periphery. In the end, the research program may turn out to have been one of the first casualties of the evolution of the study of politics into a coherent science. Far from being destiny, in 2006 geography is merely scenery. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explores the striking similarities in the eschatological world views of the far right wings of Evangelical Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism. I propose that the similiarties -- in terms of identified enemies, scenarios, the phenomena understood to herald the "end of days" -- are conditioned by globalization and should be understood primarily as anti-globalist discourse. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on working methodology and ethics of lobbying groups and also discusses the importance of lobbying in the expansion of globalization and translationalism. It informs that domestic interest groups are expanding their activities to several foreign countries which need them to bend the policy according to their demand and requirement so the lobbyist groups play their role in creating suitable working environment for their respective organizations.

The 2008 presidential campaign was a benchmark in Virginia's political history because it was the first presidential campaign in almost five decades that saw any real competition for Virginia's vote. While long term demographic changes were necessary for Virginia to become competitive, election specific issues were crucial to Virginia's transition from a reliably Republican state to a state that Democrats won in 2008. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the global and regional political factors which influence foreign policy construction. It is discussed that a government's ability to get a foreign policy is limited by its ability to extract resources domestically. It is also discussed that fewer capabilities results in a greater amount of cooperative actions by states, also, the political capacity gives opportunity to leaders to choose between cooperation and conflict.

The article discusses a study conducted to investigate the importance of power-sharing agreements in bringing about the end of civil conflict and decreasing the likelihood of conflict recurrence. It argues that military integration is not enough to bring about an end to fighting rather the extent of military integration is also required. The study uses qualitative analysis to compare military integration and its corresponding effects on the peace process.

We examine the roles of Southern identity and authoritarianism - a disposition to extol and enforce social conformity and punish and suppress dissent and difference - as predictors of defense and non-defense policy preferences in the South. A 2009 Southern regional survey offers some evidence that authoritarianism's impact on policy preferences is in part conditional and selective. Because authoritarians tend to view the world as a threatening and dangerous place, authoritarianism should strongly impact defense spending preferences and preference for force over diplomacy in international situations. Furthermore, consistent with the "Southern culture of honor" thesis (Nisbett and Cohen 1996), we found that the interaction between authoritarianism and a measure of Southern identity predicted diplomacy vs. force preferences, but not other policy attitudes. Also consistent with expectations, authoritarianism did not impact policy preferences on regulation of business and nondefense spending; ideology and party identification were more potent predictors. These results further understanding of authoritarianism as a structuring variable in Southern politics, and provide avenues for fruitful future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a comparative study of the current state of European Union and the United States during its Founding Era. The research assumptions are as such: 1) there are parallels to be drawn between the two governments in terms of their democratic institutions; 2) there are significant parallels to be drawn between the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate in the US at the time of the Founding, and the current pro- and anti-Europe debates in the European Union over the merits of centralization within the organization; 3) trends in the EU, as analyzed through these institutional areas, indicates an increasingly centralized federal political structure. In this study, a qualitative comparative method is used to evaluate the similarities and differences between the EU today and the US at the Founding Era. Specifically, an institutionalist approach is employed to determine the nature of the political structure of the constitution (or constitution-like documents), the legislature, the judiciary, and the interaction between the institutions and the citizens. Findings indicate that the European Union, both as a static and dynamic institution, strongly resembles the nature of the United States around the time of its founding. This finding suggests a tendency in the European Union towards centralization and confederation, in much the same direction as the United States did two centuries ago. A tentative prediction for the future might be that the EU will continue to centralize to a certain extent, through its institutions, but will probably not ever come to resemble the United States by forming a single country. There is no evidence that Europeans want to completely yield national sovereignty. However, the increased benefits of centralization and the self-reinforcing tendency of centralized institutions to increase chances for further centralization suggest a continued centralizing trend in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do poor domestic political conditions in uence foreign policy because leaders expect a rally effect from using force abroad or because they are trying to demonstrate leadership competence? Extant research has lead to ambiguous findings regarding the relationship between domestic political problems and foreign policy outcomes. We argue that this am- biguity is caused by a failure to distinguish between the rally and competence diversionary mechanisms. These mechanisms have divergent expectations regarding both the use of mil- itary force and diplomatic negotiations. We test hypotheses derived from both mechanisms and find that the in uence of domestic problems on foreign policy is best accounted for by the competence mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between civil society and democracy is complex, with debate often centering on issues of definition and measurement. The relationship has become the focus of foreign policy with the increase in funding provided to civil society groups in Africa, the goal of which is to strengthen democratic institutions and encourage better government. This article seeks to join the debate by unpacking the catch-all term of 'formal civil society organization.' I will focus on one aspect of civil society: associational life. Based on responses in the Afrobarometer dataset, an individual-level survey spanning 18 African countries, the findings indicate that the relationship between formal associations and democracy is much more nuanced than is often acknowledged by either side of the civil society debate. The type of organization to which an individual belongs may shape their attitude about democracy. The impact of organization type is conditioned by democratic values and attitudes about democratic institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about the international norms and its impact by the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. It informs the U.S. has carried out countless interventions throughout the Cold War and during its conduct of foreign policy. It also discusses about conflicts between the rationalists and social constructivists over the relationship between norms and international behavior.

In an effort to better understand the conditions associated with a productive Congress a new measure of "significant" legislation is developed. The measure taps topical legislative output by tracking action on issues brought to the attention of Congressional Digest readers; a journal that has focused on approximately ten salient issues facing the nation each year since the 1920s. A law passed after the Digest raises awareness on the issue, and before the Congress in question adjourns sine die, is the primary measure of productivity used. Furthermore, the Digest topics are disaggregated into foreign, domestic and intermestic policy types to test whether Congress is more proficient in one policy arena than another, but also to test whether there are different predictors of productivity in domestic versus foreign policy. The research uncovers that Congress is not more efficient in passing either domestic or foreign policy, but is decidedly more productive when faced with intermestic policy initiatives. In the secondary analysis it is determined that traditional predictors of legislative productivity perform well when trying to model domestic legislative productivity, but not well at all when foreign policy productivity is the dependent variable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presidential saber rattling has become an increasingly important tool of U. S. foreign policy in the post-World War II era. Yet, there has been no study attempting to explain why presidents make threats toward external actors. Is presidential saber rattling purely reactive to external threats directed toward the nation-at-large? If so, then presidents are acting as statesman representatives who primarily serve national interests. Or, do presidents react primarily to domestic stimuli in their decisions to make threats toward external actors? If so, then they are potentially behaving as self-interested politicians attempting to bolster their domestic standing. We formalize these arguments and then evaluate the competing theories by examining presidential saber rattling across eleven presidents and sixty-four years. We find that modern presidents respond to both foreign and domestic stimuli when choosing to make foreign policy threats. Our results suggest that presidents are sometimes statesmen and sometimes self-interested support-seekers in their manner of foreign policy representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Representative government is a theoretical approach often cited in research to explain how a normative political world would exist. The influence of legislators within budgeting and finance committees is greatly connected with policy implementation and effectiveness, making the study of representative government applicable in determining if females are reaching this influential level of the legislative process. Another important concern that will be addressed in this study is that if females are in positions of power, meaning if they are present in budgeting and finance committees, are they representing a gendered interest? The regional focus of the study is also unique, in that southern states are less representative and more traditional than other states. Therefore, it will be important to determine how female legislators act in regards to political decisions when the majority of the legislative body is male. A comparative case study of the five southern state legislatures with a range of female representation in the state legislature will be completed. I will examine the representation of females in finance or budget related committees and the impact representative government has on appropriations. Descriptions of how female legislators act in regards to their goals and activities within the legislature will be delivered. This work may have potential implications for the way female represents represent her constituents or females as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Illicit drug control policy of prohibition/criminalization has been the dominant paradigm of US drug policy for decades. This strategy of drug control has also been extended to the world through the global drug prohibition regime under the control of the United Nations. Questions have however, been raised on the existing policy within the US and across the world in recent years. The common idea is that the current drug policy is ineffective and seems unchanging. Whether policy change is occurring within the US narcotics drug policy is an important empirical research puzzle that needs to be explored. The research investigates the broad patterns of how policy change (radical or marginal) has occurred or is occurring over time within the US drug control policy since 1990, and the implications of change for the global drug prohibition regime. The research draws on key theories of policy change -orders of change (Hall, 1993) and the punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993) to examine US drug policy change. Contrasting these theories, I argue that Hall's theoretical concept of first and second order policy change provides a better explanation for the changing US drug policy. Also, US influence as a hegemonic power impacts the global drug prohibition regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I propose the security externality hypotheses of trade integration. First, since trade integration is an institutional effort to increase intraregional trade, it may produce security externalities of trade. However, not every state which agreed to trade integration obtains the same level of positive security externality. It depends upon the level of alliance commitments among them. Stronger intraregional alliance commitments are expected to have larger positive effects on trade integration. Second, given the uncertainties of international politics, alliance commitments alone may not guarantee the positive security externality. Even defense pacts may be incredible due to a high level of policy flexibility, which can reverse past commitments. In this sense, the interaction among (1) the level of alliance commitments (2) the number of domestic veto-points associated with allies' policy flexibility and (3) whether or not alliance pacts have been ratified are expected to have much stronger positive effects on trade integration. Third, if strong or reliable alliance commitments lead to a high level of trade integration, allies would delegate their sovereignty to supranational authority because costly signaling such as sovereignty-costs can create a screening process that prevents potential negative security externalities of trade. As a result, alliance and alliance reliability are expected to have strong positive effects on supranational authority of trade integration organizations. Statistical findings support these hypotheses very strongly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Turkish Grand National Assembly's decision not to allow the US troops to use Turkish territory to move into Iraq was widely considered in academic literature as a major turning point in the development of Turkish-American strategic partnership. In this context, this article questions the central role of individual, group and bureaucratic decision making disparities between Turkey and the US during the 2003 Iraq crisis. This article suggests that the divergence of Turkish and American foreign policies towards Iraq in 2003 was connected with their existing perceptions to Kurdish and PKK problem. Therefore this article asserts that whether Turkey had supported the US regime change policy in Iraq or not, Turkey could still not able to receive the US support in her fight against PKK. This article first questions whether the 2003 Iraq Crisis was an out-come of diplomatic and political errors emanating from the mismanagement of the negotiation process between Turkey and the US. Secondly the main disagreement between two parties will be defined and in the final step the main factors which diverged Turkish and American foreign policies towards Iraq in 2003 will be explained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When people trust the government, they are more likely to support its policies, especially those that require sacrifice (Hetherington 2005). However, "the government" is a complex and amorphous set of institutions. Depending upon what parts of the government become salient, the public's understanding of the nature and functions of it changes. Following the New Deal and the Great Society, people most often thought of government in terms of its ability to deal with race and welfare policy policies. We find, however, that the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Bush administration's response ushered in a new era in which people began to think about the government in terms of defense and foreign policy. As a consequence, we witness a change in how trust matters. Political trust ceased to affect attitudes about redistribution and race-targeted programs and started to affect foreign policy preferences. Our analysis of the 2000-2004 ANES Panel Study and the 2004 ANES Time Series Study shows this change transformed political trust from a reservoir of support for programs that serves the least well off to a factor leading people to favor interventionist and hawkish foreign policy. These results contribute to a somewhat new understanding of political trust. Specifically, the policy domains that become salient determine which policy preferences political trust affects. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Terrorist groups are like any political actors operating in a competitive arena. They seek to claim a certain space as the dominant representative of a defined group of people in order to advance the interests of those people. As one of many competing actors, terrorist groups may find that their behavior (the application of violence) naturally limits their support, hence their role as a constituent representative. In order to advance their position vis-à-vis other political groups, terrorist will often (a) form strategic alliances with other political groups, or (b) seek to push other groups out of the arena so they can dominate. What is the impact of cooperation versus competition between terrorist groups and other political actors on the patterns of terrorist violence? Do alliances limit terrorist violence? Does competition spur violence? This study attempts to address these questions by conducting a cross-national study on several cases of terrorism where the terrorist group(s) operate in some form of a cooperative or competitive relationship with other political groups and observe levels of violence as measured by the number of terrorist events per year, and the casualty rates per event per year. If the nature of the relationship between terrorist groups and political actors does not influence the behavior of terrorist groups, we should see no difference in the levels of terrorist violence between different forms of relationships. However, if cooperation or competition does affect terrorist groups behavior we will see in this in the patterns of violence by the terrorist group. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human Rights is situated uniquely within the vast field of International Law. Where International Law in general has an ancient history, International Human Rights Law is comparatively very recent, based upon customs rather than explicit legal agreements, and comprises complex definitions of human morality. While most international law was borne out of exchanges of promises between two states or more, as befitting the interests of the involved parties, enforceable International Human Rights Law came about as a matter of a particular circumstance in which the existing law was realized to be insufficient to address all of its parties of interest: every human being. The result of this realization was the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations' General Assembly in 1948. But, if the Universal Declaration is truly universal, why have particular regional intergovernmental organizations - such as the Council of Europe, the Organization of African Unity (now African Union), and the League of Arab States - produced human rights legal instruments of their own after ratifying the Universal Declaration? Do these regional instruments present different conceptions of human rights, or do they bolster the universality of the existing system? This study investigates these questions through the use of recently-developed textual analysis software and manual comparative content analysis techniques. Ultimately, the research finds that International Human Rights Law is undeniably Western/American in origin. But, intriguingly, it also shows that this body of international law is becoming universal, and is indeed moving the whole of international politics forward. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do audience costs make democracies more likely to honor alliance commitments than autocracies? Traditionally, scholars have argued "yes." I posit that international promises are distinct from threats in that states draw utility from promises being carried out into the future, and often, repeatedly. Threats, if tested, are beneficial when they can be carried out quickly and do not need to be repeated. I examine these differences, and the extensions that can be drawn from them, in regards to audience costs and military alliances. General shifts in public opinion on foreign policy and realizations of decreases in the value of an alliance affect the costs a leader faces for honoring or violating an alliance. Democracies are sensitive to these costs and likely to respond to these pressures in wartime tests of their alliances. I find empirical support for the hypothesis that democracies are no more likely to honor alliances than autocracies. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fact that public opinion matters in foreign policy decisions has been a matter of general consensus in the literature. Yet, the existing research on the interaction between domestic politics and international relations remains inconclusive. Still, most of the existing studies are based on the research conducted during the Cold War, and the effects of American foreign policy on the views of foreign publics about the United States have been rarely investigated.Today, in the post-911 era, where threats are no longer emanating only from the nuclear arsenals of the superpowers, and when the streets of developing countries have the potential of breeding future terrorists, the perception of the United States abroad has become an element of American security more than ever before. Hence, studying the means of how the United States can influence the views of foreign publics about the United States has gained an unprecedented importance. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coup d' état is a phenomenon that has long been studied by scholars, but little consensus has arisen regarding which factors lead elites to overthrow the incumbent. I argue these inconsistencies are due to two shortcomings. First, variables related to the military are largely absent from previous analyses, despite the vast majority of coups being undertaken by the armed forces. Second, most studies have either relied solely on successful coups or have aggregated failed and successful attempts as one category. In the former case, the data only allows us to draw conclusions regarding when a successful coup will occur. In the case of the latter, we can make inferences regarding when elites will make the decision to attempt a coup, but we cannot draw conclusions regarding which factors determine whether or not the attempt will succeed. While some factors may explain when a coup is more likely to be attempted, those factors may be inadequate in explaining whether or not the attempt will succeed. I argue that while socio-economic, political, and military factors can impact the decision to intervene, success will largely be determined by factors related to the military. In order to properly assess both aspects of coup activity, the theory is tested with a selection model incorporating global coup data from 1960-2007. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Realism has always been considered one of the safest foreign policy strategies that a nation can follow. Focusing on one's own self interest and the interests of their countrymen has always guaranteed a level of security and consistency that has earned the favor of so many U.S. officials. Now, some of the nations that provided the United States, Great Britain, and other European powers with the most economic or regional control years ago, are the same nations that monopolize our mass media as the plague of international security today.Some of modern histories most notorious revolutions and rebellions have spurred out of years of external meddling and oppression. The Cuban Revolution of 1959, and the 1979 revolutions in both Iran and Nicaragua are the direct result of U.S. intervention and realist tactics. The United States has never had a clear foreign policy except for the cries of liberty and democracy that have carried our nation against every enemy from Nazism to Communism, from Terrorism to Despotism. However, every conflict seems to end in the same confusion surrounding the actual objective of the United States government; is the main objective oil or freedom?The solution is a new look on the workings of the world, that actual promotion of liberalism and constant support for the will of the people, rather than using realist tactics, will eventually result in greater economic and political gain for the United States. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent IR scholarship on international organizations (IOs) has focused on examining conditions under which IOs engage in errant behavior and the mechanisms available to member states to reign in IO autonomy. The principal-agent and constructivist literatures in particular suggest that IO errant behavior occurs when member states do not "mind the shop," and when such behavior diverges from states' interests, IO reform will result. Moreover, these literatures assume that the process of IO reform is rooted in dilemmas of common interests, with collective action problems being particularly difficult to resolve when principals also have to address agency slippage, shirking, and/or autonomy. I argue that dilemmas of common aversions rather than common interests have driven the reform processes in both the UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN Security Council, especially over such contentious issues as membership, election procedures, and accountability. I conclude with a comparative analysis of both reform initiatives and draw insights from the successful reform of the Commission on Human Rights as to which strategies may be applied to Security Council reform so as to move it from debate to vote. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the extant literature on federalism and decentralization indicates that the devolution of power to elected subnational institutions increases responsiveness and accountability for policy outcomes across jurisdictions. This assertion makes certain implicit, and heretofore under-examined, assumptions about cross-jurisdictional (national vs. state-level) voting behavior. Specifically, in order for decentralization to promote responsiveness and accountability, voters must possess a broadly accurate picture the distribution of policy-making responsibilities across levels of government and vote according to assessments of performance within these different jurisdictions. If voters hold subnational policymakers accountable for national policy outcomes (or vice-versa), this would undermine the assumption that multi-level governance and elections promote greater accountability and responsiveness.Unfortunately, the literature presents few attempts to test these assumptions. A handful of European studies on "second order elections" along with a small number of studies comparing state and national level elections in the United States provide a rather mixed picture with some studies depicting very "jurisdictionally-minded" voters and others pointing to a strong "national referendum" effect. a key problem common to these studies is the tendency to encompass time periods when voters focus on issues of shared responsibility across levels of government (i.e. economic performance), thus making it more difficult to separate national from state or local-level concerns. With this in mind, a crucial test of the cross-level voting assumption should focus on a time period when national level institutions are most likely to be evaluated according to policy outcomes over which lower-level governments have absolutely no policy-making jurisdiction (for instance, during a major foreign policy crisis). With this in mind, this study explores the assumption about cross-level voting behavior in the United States through a cross-sectional time series analysis comparing the effects of state-level performance indicators and presidential popularity on state legislature election outcomes after September 11, 2001. Specifically we estimate the effect of presidential approval on the presidents vote share in state legislative elections, while controlling for economic and other factors that might influence election result. In selecting this time period, the authors seek to maximize the salience of jurisdictional differences between state and national political institutions during a period where the president's popularity will be largely based on foreign policy performance within the context of the "War on Terror." Results of the study carry critical implications of the literature on federalism and decentralization by either challenging or supporting the key assumption of voters' jurisdictional awareness. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most treaty studies address issues of compliance (Morrow, 2007; Kelley, 2007). This is often a fruitful research agenda when we can determine a useful definition of compliance and when there is variance in compliant behavior. However, in the case of extradition treaties, a good definition of compliance is hard to come by, and given what is probably the most intuitive definition (i.e. extraditing pursuant to a request), states over comply. Furthermore, before we can begin to understand compliance, we need to understand commitment. Accordingly, I take a step back and seek to determine those factors, which influence the decision to commit. I analyze the decision to commit by looking at whether states sign bilateral extradition treaties. I draw upon the legal and political science literature to develop a comprehensive model of states' decisions to sign. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globalization has opened the doors to a more interconnected world in which access to different markets and cultures is simplified. Although such increased interconnection has positive consequences, including the easier transmission of knowledge, it also facilitates the spread of transnational crimes. Networks of criminals take advantage of the porosity of the borders, which can be considered a symptom of the weakening of the State. Nevertheless, States can increase their level of cooperation with other States and among different institutions to limit the negative consequences of transnational crimes.Although States agree on the relevance of increasing the level of cooperation to combat transnational crime, the implementation of the needed level of cooperation is complicated. Based to a great extent on the analysis of two international workshops on the transnational crimes of terrorism, human trafficking and migrant smuggling that took place at John Jay College with the participation of law enforcement officials, NGO-representatives and scholars from six countries (including Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, and Turkey) that are part of SECI (Southeast European Cooperative Initiative), it is possible to reach the following preliminary conclusions: first, the State is still a leading force at the domestic and at the international level. Second, the exchange of information is crucial to weaken transnational crime but States are reluctant to part with privileged knowledge. And third, the input of NGOS is needed to foster a type of cooperation that is respectful of international human rights. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do transnational networks have the advantage over nation states in the struggle to control Afghanistan? The total amount of resources possessed by NATO nation states does not equal a decisive advantage over the insurgency because only a fraction of NATO power is being brought to bear in Afghanistan. Transnational networks by contrast are able to devote nearly 100% of their collective power towards achieving their Afghan goals. The conflict on the ground is not the mismatch the western media has portrayed it to be. By examining how insurgent networks operate and what kind of advantages they have over nation states in the current Afghan conflict we can gain a fuller understanding of events in Afghanistan and how to improve them. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American Responses to Israeli Foreign Policy InitiativesThe origin of the US-Israeli relationship can be found in President Harry S. Truman's support for the new state of Israel on May 14, 1948. While support to Israel has varied during presidential administrations from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush, strategic interests have steadily defined the nation's responses to Israel. Important works in the literature delve deeply and in detail to describe the US-Israeli relationship (Quandt 2005, Spiegel 1985; Oren 2007, 2002). The literature, however, does not rely on empirical studies to try to explain what causes positive or negative US responses to Israeli foreign policy initiatives. Empirical research measuring US responses to Israeli foreign policy initiatives can lead to understanding of US foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel; and such knowledge serves the public interest. In order to measure US reaction to Israel, this empirical study conducts a content analysis on US statements published in the New York Times following four Israeli military initiatives: the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1976 Raid on Entebbe, the 1981 Raid on Osirak, and the 2006 Lebanon War. The research reveals that the US reacts more positively to Israeli reactive than to anticipatory and preemptive self-defensive actions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Africa's rise to prominence in the geopolitics of the 21st century is explained largely by the renewal of great power interest towards the region of the world once dismissed as the "forgotten continent." This great power concern reproduces the same power-play which characterised the Cold War when inter-locking and overlapping interests of great powers significantly shaped the outlook of international politics. The end of the Cold War and the subsequent demise of the Soviet Union gave rise to a new environment which President George H.W Bush called a "New World Order" in 1990. This "New World Order" or globalization as it came to be called, saw the expansion of capitalism across regional and continental boundaries at the expense of its reeling rival, communismBarely a decade after President Bush's ordination of a new global environment, another world order was gradually emerging. This "Third World Order" as it has also been named, is championed by a rising eastern giant, China. The unprecedented rise of China as an economic power capable of steering the course of the global economy provides a credible alternative to the western-driven concept of globalization. The imagined or real rivalry between these two power blocs is the concern of this article. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines both how mediation affects duration of international crises and to what extent mediation styles influence them. The system-level dataset of the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) Project provides the useful way to look into mediation and duration of international crises. The Cox proportional hazard model reports that mediated crises are more likely to have the longer duration. Whether a mediator intervenes before or after the onset of the crisis does not matter. Interestingly, while the effect of mediation styles on crises duration is hardly discernable, only mediation of formulation seems to have significantly different effects. It is more likely to make a crisis longer. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although low levels of international knowledge among the American public, there is little discussion of its theoretical background or specific empirical evidence. Therefore, the present study examines the roles that media use, news attention, interpersonal involvement and interpersonal discussion play in the development of international knowledge. The findings support four of the measures such as media use, international news attention, international news involvement and interpersonal discussion play the positive and predictive roles for international knowledge. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article proposes an alternative theoretical framework that will discern the exact inter-institutional policy-making relationship which the president shares with the U.S. Congress in the realm of foreign affairs. A utilizing factor and content analyses of presidential position roll call votes in foreign affairs are suggested to showcase the role played by divergent issue areas such as national security. The author observes that the post-Cold War order would be defined as a period of change in the politics of the opportunity structures.

The article examines the relationship between domestic public opinion and international relations between two or more independent states from the perspective of international relations scholars and Americanists. It takes a closer look at the impact of decisions made by American presidents on their approval ratings. It offers a hypothesis that contends that the outcomes of international disputes impact public opinion in predictable ways beyond those best articulated in the simple rallying effect thesis.

The article presents information on the U.S. policy toward the Taiwan Strait under the administration of President George W. Bush. It puts the policy under historical perspective by examining the evolution of it. Some previous research literatures will be briefly discussed and argues that all of them cannot convincingly account for U.S. policy toward Taiwan in this time period. It proposes that there are two levels in the international system and rational actors at different levels will play different games to maximize their interests and power.

The article discusses the relations between the European Union (EU) and the U.S., with focus on the position of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). It examines whether the rift is deepening towards heading the transatlantic relations from alliance to partnership. The author questions whether the ideas of global war against terror, shaping global trade environment, and spreading American model of democracy help to maintain the tie.

The article compares the rhetoric of genocide in U.S. foreign policy in Rwanda and Darfur, Sudan. It is noted that one of the great moral and political failures of U.S. foreign policy is the lack of response to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, and the administration of former U.S. President Bill Clinton consciously avoided referring to the situation as genocide. The author claims, however, that the dealing of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration with the tragedy in Darfur belies the approach of the Clinton administration in Rwanda.

The article examines the influence of international conflict involvement on the development of national democracy. The argument that international conflict involvement will undermine democracy of target states due to the negative impact of external threats on development is explored. The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method and diverse datasets concerning international conflict have been employed.

The article presents a radical analysis of whether the epistemological debate on positivism and postpositivism influences the empirical research that international relations (IR) scholars actually conduct. A literary review of articles about the epistemological debate, published in the journals "International Studies Quarterly" and "Review of International Studies," is presented. It is argued that it is not possible to be genuinely postpositivist.

The article examines the U.S. policy toward Taiwan strait under the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. It discusses empirical facts and evidence which suggest that the U.S. policy has been changed and then presents previous research literatures. It argues that all of them cannot convincingly account for U.S. policy toward Taiwan in this time period. It proposes a theoretical model and that there are two levels in the international system and rational actors at different levels will play different games to maximize their interests and power.

The article proposes a direction for future research that draws attention to the significance of decision makers' personality traits in international relations. It suggests an approach to understanding risk-taking during war by employing the Big-Five factor model of personality. It offers an explanation of world leaders' behavior from the perspective of the Big Five factor model, which is a trait theory of personality.