Showing papers in "Journal of Global Security Studies in 2019"
110 citations
TL;DR: This paper examined the foreign policy responses of three major host states, namely Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, to the Syrian refugee crisis, and concluded that the choice of strategy depended on the size of the host state's refugee community and domestic elites' perception of their geostrategic importance vis-a-vis the target.
Abstract: How does forced migration affect the politics of host states and, in particular, how does it impact states’ foreign policy decision-making? The relevant literature on refugee politics has yet to fully explore how forced migration affects host states’ behavior. One possibility is that they will employ their position in order to extract revenue from other state or nonstate actors for maintaining refugee groups within their borders. This article explores the workings of these refugee rentier states, namely states seeking to leverage their position as host states of displaced communities for material gain. It focuses on the Syrian refugee crisis, examining the foreign policy responses of three major host states—Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. While all three engaged in post-2011 refugee rent-seeking behavior, Jordan and Lebanon deployed a back-scratching strategy based on bargains, while Turkey deployed a blackmailing strategy based on threats. Drawing upon primary sources in English and Arabic, the article inductively examines the choice of strategy and argues that it depended on the size of the host state's refugee community and domestic elites’ perception of their geostrategic importance vis-a-vis the target. The article concludes with a discussion of these findings’ significance for understanding the international dimension of the Syrian refugee crisis and argues that they also pave the way for future research on the effects of forced displacement on host states’ political development.
93 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors assess the current measures used to evaluate the status and impact of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) and lay the groundwork for a deeper examination of RtoP's strength by specifying what kind of norm it is, and what it can reasonably be expected to do.
Abstract: This article begins by critically assessing some of the current measures used to evaluate the status and impact of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). It then lays the groundwork for a deeper examination of RtoP’s strength by specifying what kind of norm it is, and what it can reasonably be expected to do. The third section engages Zimmerman and Deitelhoff’s framework on norm robustness and contestation by positing two arguments. First, the past decade of diplomatic engagement and policy development has brought about greater consensus on RtoP’s core elements, and thus enhanced its validity; however, this process has also dampened many of RtoP’s original cosmopolitan aspirations. Second, persistent applicatory contestation about RtoP’s so-called third pillar is revealing deeper concerns about the norm’s justification – thereby leading some actors to avoid framing situations with RtoP terminology. I use two cases to address the broader theoretical questions raised about whether and how language matters in assessing norm robustness: the international community’s response to the deepening political violence in Burundi in 2015, and the evolution of the international community’s response to the war in Syria (2011–17). While these cases illustrate changing perceptions of the political utility of RtoP language, concrete engagement by the international community, particularly in the Burundi case, indicates that RtoP’s validity remains intact. The article concludes that norm decay is not equivalent to norm death, and that RtoP’s prescriptions will survive given that they are embedded in a broader normative structure of human rights, humanitarian law, and civilian protection.
32 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that there is a distinct "American approach" to international relations and security studies and that this approach is a product of Western cognitive frames, and identify three factors that represent the American approach's hyper-Westernized framing: individualism, equality, and a preference for causal rather than contextual analysis.
Abstract: Why do American perspectives of international relations (IR) continue to hold sway over an increasingly diverse discipline? What actually constitutes “Americanness” in IR? Who is considered “American” in IR? These are the central questions we explore in this essay. Drawing on cognitive and behavioral insights from social psychology, we argue that there is a distinct “American approach” to international relations and security studies and that this approach is a product of Western cognitive frames. We identify three factors that represent the American approach's hyper-Westernized framing: individualism, equality, and a preference for causal rather than contextual analysis, and a preference for egalitarianism. We argue that these are reinforced by two social identity processes—academic identity and national identity. The consequences of “being American” in IR and security studies suggest not only problems of attention and accuracy, but an inherent failure to appreciate that Western—and particularly, American—ways of seeing and valuing the world are not universal.
28 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors evaluate the robustness of international criminal law norms by looking at the rhetoric and actions of a diverse set of international actors, including not only states and intergovernmental organizations but also ordinary publics, rebel groups, and non-governmental organizations.
Abstract: One way to tell if an international norm is robust is to assess the breadth of its support from a wide variety of important actors. We argue that to assess norm robustness, we should look at the general beliefs, rhetorical support, and actions of both primary and secondary norm addressees (states and non-state actors) at various levels: international, regional, domestic and local. By way of example, we evaluate the robustness of international criminal law (ICL) norms by looking at the rhetoric and actions of a diverse set of international actors, including not only states and intergovernmental organizations but also ordinary publics, rebel groups, and non-governmental organizations. Assessing evidence of norms beyond states leads us to conclude that the core ICL norms are robust but their practical and institutional applicability are still contested. Contestation over applicability is important and there are hints that it is growing, at least among some key actors, suggesting the possibility of ICL norm decay.
28 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that the concept of a "Chinese-style regulatory state" can help understand and explain how Chinese foreign and security policy is actually developed and leads to outcomes that are less coherent and strategic than IR scholars usually suggest.
Abstract: There is growing evidence of the transformation of statehood under globalization, specifically, the fragmentation, decentralization and internationalization of state apparatuses. While most pronounced in Western Europe, these trends are observable worldwide. Foreign policy analysis (FPA) and international relations (IR) theory have fundamentally failed to keep pace with this epochal development. These traditions still largely understand states as coherent actors whose territorial borders “contain” sociopolitical relations and where identifiable “decisions” produce unified policies and strategies. This article challenges this shortcoming, offering a new theorization of foreign and security policy-making and implementation that foregrounds state transformation and the rise of regulatory statehood. The theory is developed and illustrated using the case of China, which IR/FPA scholars typically depict as the quintessential authoritarian, “Westphalian,” unitary state, but which has in fact undergone enormous state transformation since 1978. The article argues that the concept of a “Chinese-style regulatory state” can help understand and explain how Chinese foreign and security policy is actually developed and leads to outcomes that less coherent and strategic than IR scholars usually suggest.
23 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate the impact of United States' actions on the global norm against torture and reveal that these actions did not impact global human rights trends, but did shape the behavior of states that aided and abetted US torture policies, especially those lacking strong domestic legal structures.
Abstract: Following the attacks of 9/11, the United States adopted a policy of torturing suspected terrorists and reinterpreted its legal obligations so that it could argue that this policy was lawful. This article investigates the impact of these actions by the United States on the global norm against torture. After conceptualizing how the United States contested the norm against torture, the article explores how US actions impacted the norm across four dimensions of robustness: concordance with the norm, third-party reactions to norm violations, compliance, and implementation. This analysis reveals a heterogeneous impact of US contestation: while US policies did not impact global human rights trends, it did shape the behavior of states that aided and abetted US torture policies, especially those lacking strong domestic legal structures. The article sheds light on the circumstances under which powerful states can shape the robustness of global norms.
23 citations
TL;DR: The authors found that American perspectives, left unexamined, negatively affect the field's research, and pointed out that these perspectives have the potential to affect the answers to a host of important questions in part by shaping the questions that get asked in the first place.
Abstract: Scholars of international relations (IR) from the United States, like any country, view the world with particular perspectives and beliefs that shape their perceptions, judgments, and worldviews. These perspectives have the potential to affect the answers to a host of important questions—in part by shaping the questions that get asked in the first place. All scholars are potentially affected by national bias, but American bias matters more than others. This special issue focuses on two issues: attention and accuracy in IR research. While previous scholarship has raised principally normative or theoretical concerns about American dominance in IR, our work is heavily empirical and engages directly with the field's mainstream neopositivist approach. The collected articles provide specific, fine-grained examples of how American perspectives matter for IR, using evidence from survey experiments, quantitative datasets, and more. Our evidence suggests that American perspectives, left unexamined, negatively affect our field's research. Still, the essays in this special issue remain bullish about the field's neopositivist project overall. We also offer concrete steps for taking on the problems we identify, and improving our field's scholarship.
22 citations
20 citations
20 citations
TL;DR: The authors assesses the case studies in light of the framing conjectures and draw broad conclusions, indicating areas where general conclusions are not yet possible, and points out directions for further theoretical development and empirical investigation.
Abstract: The collaborative project reported in this special issue has sought to move beyond any straightforward connection between norm violation or norm contestation, on the one hand, and norm robustness on the other. Instead, the effects of contestation on norm robustness are conditioned by characteristics of norm challengers and norm defenders, by the nature of the contestation, and by features of norm institutionalization and embeddedness. This contribution assesses the case studies in light of the framing conjectures. It draws broad conclusions, indicates areas where general conclusions are not yet possible, and points out directions for further theoretical development and empirical investigation.
TL;DR: The authors identify five strategies that previous scholars have shown fostered efforts to promote a logic of appropriateness in human rights, humanitarian law, and disarmament, and highlight the recent success of efforts to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear weapons.
Abstract: Climate change poses a grave security threat to national borders, habitats, and vulnerable people. Plagued by asymmetries in both states' vulnerability to climate impacts and their capacity to mitigate them, climate change presents states with a “wicked” problem that poses significant obstacles to interest-based solutions. Yet, most global climate change policy involves rationales and mechanisms grounded in an interest-based logic of consequences: information-sharing, reciprocity, and exchange. We argue that strategies that promote ethics-based discourse and policies offer considerable promise for hastening stronger global climate governance. We argue that successes in human security norm-building, including bans on land mines, cluster munitions, and nuclear weapons, provide climate scholars and practitioners with alternative governance models that rely on activating a logic of appropriateness and spearhead faster, more effective climate action. We identify five strategies that previous scholars have shown fostered efforts to promote a logic of appropriateness in human rights, humanitarian law, and disarmament. We examine the empirical experience of those strategies and particularly highlight the recent success of efforts to negotiate a treaty banning nuclear weapons. Given the success of these strategies in other issue areas, we argue scholars of climate change could fruitfully focus greater attention on political efforts that promote strong global ethical norms for climate action.
TL;DR: The authors investigated the factors that affect scholarly attention on particular countries in four major international relations (IR) journals: International Studies Quarterly, International Organization, International Security, and World Politics for the period 1970 to the present.
Abstract: This article investigates the factors that affect scholarly attention on particular countries in four major international relations (IR) journals: International Studies Quarterly, International Organization, International Security, and World Politics for the period 1970 to the present. The analysis supports three basic conclusions. First, the United States receives the most scholarly attention in leading IR journals by a large margin. Second, a baseline model of scholarly attention, including just population, gross domestic product (GDP), and a dummy for the United States fits the data rather well. Additional factors such as membership in prominent international organizations or involvement in armed conflicts improve model fit, but only marginally, with little evidence of regional or English-language bias. And third, there is only weak evidence that countries with stronger economic and security linkages with the United States receive more attention. However, Israel and Taiwan—two countries with unique security relationships with the United States—receive more scholarly attention than either the baseline or augmented models would predict. Our analysis of bibliometric data from leading IR journals indicates the United States is the three-hundred-thousand-pound blue whale of IR scholarship. However, this emphasis is not particularly outsized when its large population, economy, and its extensive history of participation in interstate wars are taken into account.
TL;DR: For example, this article found that expressing anger elicits concessions if a leader has projected an image for being composed most of the time, while expressing anger makes an interlocutor more unyielding if the leader is known for becoming angry easily and frequently.
Abstract: When leaders negotiate face-to-face, why would an expression of anger make an interlocutor yield to one’s demand in some instances but cause him to become more intransigent in others? In this article, I consult recent findings in social and experimental psychology and provide an explanation for when anger is more likely to be considered a credible expression of resolve. Anger elicits concessions if a leader has projected an image for being composed most of the time. On the contrary, expressing anger makes an interlocutor more unyielding if a leader is known for becoming angry easily and frequently. I demonstrate such contrasting preconceptions of a leader’s temperament – a “stoic” vs. a “hothead” – and their impact on the larger trajectory of international politics with two in-depth case studies on the face-to-face interactions between Khrushchev, Macmillan and Eisenhower from the onset of the Berlin Crisis in November 1958 to the aborted four-power summit in Paris two years later.
TL;DR: The authors show that the curricula and training that graduate students of international relations receive in the United States are overwhelmingly focused on European examples and analogies and have almost no exposure to Asian examples and history.
Abstract: Scholars have been particularly hampered in their explanations and understanding of Asian security because they often learn little about Asia in their graduate training. The international relations (IR) literature draws an overwhelming proportion of its empirical source material from the European historical experience. We show that the curricula and training that graduate students of international relations receive in the United States are overwhelmingly focused on European examples. In short, the median American scholar of IR is deeply comfortable with European examples and analogies and has almost no exposure to Asian examples and history. Thus, when faced with Asian examples, they are considered within the context they are taught: through the European lens. We conclude with a call for greater attention to the empirical reality that is Asia.
TL;DR: The authors argues that cultural bias generates deeper problems with both ontology and epistemology, and argues that the call to arms is more urgent and more significant than Colgan et al. express.
Abstract: This article responds to the Journal of Global Security Studies special issue on “American Perspectives and Blind Spots on World Politics,” edited by Jeff Colgan. It applauds their significant achievement in offering positivist demonstrations of the bias generated by American assumptions, coding, and preferences, and quantitative demonstration of the systemic and systematic impact of this bias in skewing key assumptions and theories in mainstream US international relations (IR), by selectivizing attention and compromising accuracy. The article pushes the envelope further by arguing that the call to arms is more urgent and more significant than Colgan et al. express. As US hegemony is diluted, the discipline of IR must increasingly account for other parts of the world. Here, cultural bias generates deeper problems with both ontology and epistemology. The article reviews the wider IR field that shows how IR is at once more global and less easily generalizable, driving the imperative to expand the universe of cases for qualitative research. It warns that the problem of US bias and the wider issue of insularity is accentuated by the growing distance between IR scholarship as expressed in top journal publications and “real-world” puzzles and empirical reality—and by ongoing changes in how governments provide state support and funding for IR research and training.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors return to the original forum question "What is Global Security Studies?", looking at it in relation to the theme of inclusion and exclusion to point out that security studies scholars...
Abstract: This article returns to the original forum question “What is Global Security Studies?,” looking at it in relation to the theme of inclusion and exclusion to point out that security studies scholars ...
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors take stock of insights from East Asian hierarchies for the study of international hierarchy as such and argue for and defend an explanatory approach emphasizing repertoires or toolkits of hierarchical super-and subordination.
Abstract:
International relations (IR) has seen a proliferation of recent research on both international hierarchies as such and on historical IR in (often hierarchical) East Asia. This article takes stock of insights from East Asian hierarchies for the study of international hierarchy as such. I argue for and defend an explanatory approach emphasizing repertoires or toolkits of hierarchical super- and subordination. Historical hierarchies surrounding China took multiple dynastic forms. I emphasize two dimensions of variation. First, hierarchy-building occurs in dialogue between cores and peripheries. Variation in these relationships proliferated multiple arrangements for hierarchical influence and rule. Second, Sinocentric hierarchies varied widely over time, in ways that suggest learning. Successive Chinese dynasties both emulated the successes and avoided the pitfalls of the past, adapting their ideologies and strategies for rule to varying circumstances by recombining past political repertoires to build new ones. Taken together, these phenomena suggest new lines of inquiry for research on hierarchies in IR.
TL;DR: This article examined whether there is a US bias affecting how American political scientist study nuclear weapons and their effects and found that US dominance in the production and dissemination of political science literature on nuclear weapons is reflected in concepts and theories of their spread and use, as well as prominent datasets on nuclear proliferation.
Abstract:
This article examines whether there is a US bias affecting how American political scientist study nuclear weapons and their effects. US dominance in the production and dissemination of political science literature on nuclear weapons is reflected in concepts and theories of their spread and use, as well as prominent datasets on nuclear proliferation. More broadly, is there a US bias in scholarship on nuclear weapons produced by American political scientist? In this article I examine whether there is a US bias that affects what is studied, what kinds of questions are asked and what cases are examined, and how the evidence is interpreted.
TL;DR: This paper showed that three major datasets contain problematic interpretative judgments, arguably biased toward the United States: the Polity dataset, Reiter and Stam's data on war outcomes, and Singh and Way's data about nuclear proliferation.
Abstract: Three major datasets contain problematic interpretative judgments, arguably biased toward the United States: the Polity dataset; Reiter and Stam's data on war outcomes; and Singh and Way's data on nuclear proliferation. These examples raise the possibility that important datasets in global security studies, and in political science more generally, are systematically affected by an American bias. Bias means that, non-Americans might code the same observations differently, on average. The issue arises because Americans, on average, seem to have certain predispositions that non-Americans, on average, do not have. Other nationalities have their own predispositions. I also demonstrate that each of the three empirical examples has significant implications for causal inferences, altering certain statistical findings based upon them. For instance, I reexamine Haber and Menaldo's study of the resource curse, showing that alternative data coding casts substantial doubt on their inferences.
TL;DR: The authors show that assumptions about the relationship between domestic and international politics that underlie significant segments of American IR scholarship are unwarranted and that these US-centric assumptions skew certain IR literatures and limit important research agendas pursued by American scholars.
Abstract: How do the limitations of the American perspective in international relations (IR) affect the accuracy of theorizing? We show that assumptions about the relationship between domestic and international politics that underlie significant segments of American IR scholarship are unwarranted. Publics around the world do not respond to United Nations’ and other intergovernmental organizations’ criticism of their governments in the same way that Americans do. Publics are not universally poorly informed of their country's foreign policies, and they are not equally skeptical of the value of using force for resolving disputes with other states. We demonstrate the limitations of US-based scholarship using new and unique survey data from the United States and other countries. We then address how these US-centric assumptions skew certain IR literatures and limit important research agendas pursued by American scholars.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine two junctures for where the norm has been tested but not overturned: World War II and the slow shift by some states to incorporate women into their militaries beginning in the 1980s.
Abstract: The norm against female combat participation has been powerfully influential and extremely slow to change, despite a record of violation and concerted attempts by states to overturn it. As a result, it is a useful lens through which to examine the factors that make norms robust. I examine two junctures for where the norm has been tested but not overturned: World War II and the slow shift by some states to incorporate women into their militaries beginning in the 1980s. These instances reveal two important elements of norm robustness: (1) the degree to which norms are embedded with other norms is essential to understanding why the norm gained strength after women participated in World War II, and (2) the absence of legalization and norm entrepreneurs explains why the integration of women in the 1980s and onward has not overturned the norm. The article also examines other features of norm robustness, particularly the notion that norms that are both procedural and ethical in character will be more robust, and that the behaviour of powerful states does not always cause norm diffusion through the international system.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that Muslim women decide to engage in acts of suicide terrorism because of their perception of the national economy, rather than actual economic conditions such as gross domestic product per capita or the Gini index.
Abstract: Common belief holds that economic misery motivates more people to commit acts of suicide terrorism. The existing literature, however, fails to find an empirical linkage between these two phenomena. This study offers a novel theoretical perspective and statistical evidence on the economy and terrorism connection. I argue that Muslim women decide to engage in acts of suicide terrorism because of their perception of the national economy, rather than actual economic conditions such as gross domestic product per capita or the Gini index. Based upon a statistical analysis of 4,495 incidents of suicide terrorism during the period from 1981 to 2015, the study shows that, when Muslim women perceive their national economy to be unfavorable, they are more likely to commit acts of suicide terrorism.
TL;DR: The authors argued that many of those who study topics labeled as "peace" are actually studying conflict, meaning that we have a complex "masala" of peaceandconflictstudies.
Abstract: This essay unpacks some of the nuances and complexities of peace and conflict studies. While it accepts that there are divisions between those who study conflict and those who study peace, it argues that there are also multiple sites of overlap and complementarity. Many of those who study topics labeled as “peace” are actually studying conflict, meaning that we have a complex “masala” of peaceandconflictstudies. Moreover, trends within social science research more broadly reflect the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of recent work.