Military Interventions As Omitted Variable Of Inversed Democratic Peace: An Empirical Evidence

Др Срђан Кораћ

Ненад Стекић

Сажетак

The paper examines the relationship between military interventions and democratisation processes which took place in targeted states. While many researchers try to identify relationship between the regime type and countries’ war proneness, the authors of this paper put these two variables in a reversed order. To test this so-called “inversed democratic peace” thesis based on an argument that an ongoing war is likely to lead to democratisation, we focus our analysis on the US interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and FR Yugoslavia (Kosovo). We deploy three variables: 1) Foreign policy similarity, to determine whether the intervening actor (USA) had similar or different foreign policy goals at the beginning of interventions; 2) Political regime similarity, to indicate whether there were any deviations in the quality of political regime between the intervening state and the target country, as indicated by the democratic peace postulates; 3) military interventions (independent variable). Foreign policy score includes S score dataset developed by Curtis S. Signorino and Jeffrey M. Ritter (1999), while for the political regime quality, the authors deploy Polity IV data. Statistical analysis including Pearsonʼs correlation, logistic regression and descriptive statistics, will be presented for specific dyad level in three specifically designated models. The authors conclude that it is more likely that military interventions affect further democratisation of the targeted post-conflict societies, if observed in a short term rather than in longitudinal domain, while the foreign policy similarity (with the United States) positively correlates in cases with more successful democratisation process.

Референце

• Achen, C. H. (2002) “Toward a new political methodology: Microfoundations and ART”. Annual Review of Political Science, 5(1): pp. 423–450.
• Anderson, G. L. (2018) “Positive peace and transcendent values”. International Journal on World Peace, 35(2): pp. 3–5.
• Bell, M. S., & Quek, K. (2018) „Authoritarian Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace“. International Organization, 72(1): pp. 227–242.
• Bremer, S. A. (1993) “Democracy and militarized interstate conflict, 1816–1965”. International Interactions, 18(3): pp. 231–249.
• D’Orazio, V. (2013) Advancing Measurement of Foreign Policy Similarity Draft v. 4.
• Doyle, M. W. (1983) “Kant, liberal legacies, and foreign affairs”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3): pp. 205–235.
• Häge, F. M. (2011) “Choice or circumstance? Adjusting measures of foreign policy similarity for chance agreement”. Political Analysis, 19(3): pp. 287–305.
• Häge, F., & Hug, S. (2016) “Consensus decisions and similarity measures in international organizations”. International Interactions, 42(3): pp. 503–529.
• Hermann, М. and Kegley, Jr. C. (1998) “The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record”. International Interactions, 24(2): pp. 91–114.
• Huntington, S. (1991) “The Third Wave”. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
• Кораћ, С. T., Стекић, Н. (2018) „Eтичке опречности тезе о демократском миру” [Ethical Contradictions of Democratic Peace Thesis]. Српска политичка мисао, 54(4): pp. 95–117.
• Levy, J. S. (1988) “Domestic politics and war”. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4): pp. 653–673.
• Mansfield, E. and Snyder, J. (2005) Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
• Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993) “Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986”. American Political Science Review, 87(3): pp. 624–638.
• Marshall M., Gurr Robert T. & Jaggers (2019), Polity IV Project Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2018, Virginia: Systemic Peace Center
• Meernik, J. (1996) “United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy”. Journal of Peace Research, 33(4): pp. 391–402.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1978) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle For Power and Peace [5th ed., revised]. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
• Peceny, М. (1999) “Forcing Them to be Free”. Political Research Quarterly, 52(3): pp. 549–582.
• Pickering Ј. and Kisangani Е. (2006) “Political, Economic, and Social Consequences of Foreign Military Intervention”. Political Research Quarterly 59(3): pp. 363–376.
• Ray, J. L., & Dafoe, A. (2018) „Democratic peace versus contractualism“. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 35(2): pp. 193–203.
• Ross, M. L. (2004) “What do we know about natural resources and civil war?”. Journal of Peace Research, 41(3): pp. 337–356.
• Strüver, G. (2016) “What friends are made of: Bilateral linkages and domestic drivers of foreign policy alignment with China”. Foreign Policy Analysis, 12(2): pp. 170–191.
• Sullivan, P. L., and Koch, M. (2009) “Military Intervention by Powerful States, 1945-2003”. Journal of Peace Research, 46(5): pp. 707–718.
• Vanhanen, T. (2000) “A new dataset for measuring democracy, 1810–1998”. Journal of Peace Research, 37(2): pp. 251–265.
• Dixon, W. J. (1994) “Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict”. American Political Science Review, 88(1): pp. 14–32.
• Russett, B. (2005) “Bushwhacking the democratic peace”. International Studies Perspectives, 6(4): pp. 395–408.
• Wickham, C. (2004) “The problem with coercive democratization: The Islamist response to the US Democracy Reform Initiative”. Muslim World Journal of Human Rights, 1(1).
• Signorino, C. S. & Ritter, J. M. (1999) “Tau-b or not tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions”. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1): pp. 115–144.