Copyright (c) 2009 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell Recent documents in Sara McLaughlin Mitchell en-us Sun, 31 May 2009 11:45:24 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/21 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/21 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:40:56 PST In a path-breaking article, Wade Huntley (1996) reinterpreted Immanuel Kant's pacific union as a systemic phenomenon. Huntley's argument spawned a new wave of inquiry into the evolutionary expansion of the democratic peace, with several empirical studies finding a positive relationship between global democracy and systemic peace (e.g. Crescenzi and Enterline 1999; Gleditsch and Hegre 1997; Kadera, Crescenzi, and Shannon 2003; Mitchell, Gates, and Hegre 1999). Yet, there are many possible theoretical explanations of this aggregate relationship. In this paper, we compare two broad theoretical tales of the systemic democratic peace. The first approach, "might makes right", emphasizes the importance of authority for creating liberal peace, especially the role played by a democratic hegemon and liberal major powers. The second approach, "right makes might", traces the evolution of the systemic democratic peace to shifts in morality and liberal norms, drawing from work by Rawls (1999) and Wendt (1999). We compare and contrast these two broad theoretical tales, and argue that both "might" and "right" are important to the dynamic spread of the democratic peace. We then consider possible tensions between "might" and "right" based arguments highlighted by the recent Iraq War. We argue that it is grossly over-simplistic to equate the theoretical arguments being put forward by systemic democratic peace theory with the policy prescriptions put forward by the current US administration. As an alternative to both the assertion of a general right to coercive intervention by liberal states and blanket opposition to democracy as a universal project, we present the case for a middle ground, advocating the prudent use of material levers of power by liberal states to promote democracy overseas. Ewan Harrison http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/20 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/20 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:40:51 PST Some studies find that democratic states are more amenable to third party forms of conflict management, while other studies indicate that democracies are able to resolve contentious issues on their own through bilateral negotiations. Using data from the Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project, the authors investigate peaceful and militarized conflict management strategies that democratic states employ to resolve contentious issues. Theoretically, the authors focus on how militarized conflict history, relative capabilities, and issue salience influence the tools of conflict management that democratic states employ. Empirical analyses suggest that democratic dyads employ bilateral negotiations more often to resolve contentious issues when the issue has been militarized previously, when the issue is more salient, and when they are facing an equal adversary. Democratic dyads seek out non-binding third party settlement more frequently in situations of power preponderance than non-democratic dyads, although binding forms of third party settlement occur most often in relatively equal democratic dyads. Pairs of democracies are more likely to employ militarized conflict management strategies when they have resorted to force over the issue previously, when the issue is highly salient, and when they are evenly matched. Glynn Ellis http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/19 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/19 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:40:46 PST Many scholars accept the important role international organizations (IOs) play in facilitating cooperation among states in world politics, yet there is disagreement about the theoretical mechanisms that best account for the positive correlation between shared IO memberships and cooperation. Institutionalists and Rationalists treat state preferences as fixed and emphasize the influence of IO memberships on interstate bargaining. In this view, IOs act as constraints, because while they help states negotiate more efficiently (with fewer costs & greater information), they do not significantly alter states' preferences. Constructivists, on the other hand, recognize that organizations can alter member states' identities and interests, and that long and deep commitments to international organizations can have constitutive effects on member states' preferences and behavior. In this paper, I derive several hypotheses about the constraining and constitutive effects of IOs on member state behavior from existing theoretical arguments in the IR literature and evaluate these claims empirically using data on contentious issues from the Issue Correlates of War Project. Empirical analyses show that while shared IO memberships (frequency and duration) neither prevent the onset of new contentious issues nor promote more frequent peaceful settlement attempts, they do decrease the use of militarized force and produce more successful negotiation attempts. Disputants are much more likely to reach and comply with agreements to end contentious issue claims when they share more frequent and durable memberships in international organizations. Sara Mitchell http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/18 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/18 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:40:40 PST Maritime issues have gained international prominence in recent decades, fueled by the decline in global fishing catches, the scramble for oil and mineral resources, and states' desire to lay sovereign claims to their maritime spaces. States are willing to use militarized force to defend their maritime claims, as the UK-Iceland "Cod Wars" and militarized confrontations between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea demonstrate. This paper evaluates two primary mechanisms for resolving maritime conflicts: 1) the creation of private ownership of maritime zones in the form of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), and 2) the creation of an institution, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to establish standards for maritime claims and the resolution of disputes. We evaluate the effects of UNCLOS and EEZs on the peaceful and militarized management of maritime claims in the Western Hemisphere and Europe (1900-2001) and the long-run effects of privatization and institutionalization on marine fishing stocks (1950-2003). Our analyses suggest that declared EEZs work efficiently for helping states to reach agreements over maritime claims in bilateral negotiations, while membership in UNCLOS prevents the outbreak of new claims and promotes more frequent third party management efforts. We also find a U-shaped relationship between marine catches and the duration of UNCLOS/EEZ commitments, indicating that fish stocks initially decline and then recover positively after the implementation of conservation policies. Sara Mitchell http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/17 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/17 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:40:34 PST We develop and test a theory of the supply side of third party conflict management. Building on an existing formal model of mediation (Kydd 2003), we consider several factors that increase the pool of potential neutral mediators and the frequency of mediators' efforts to manage interstate conflicts. First, we argue that democratic mediators face greater audience costs for deception in the conflict management process because the media in democratic states is more likely to uncover attempts by democratic mediators to provide false information. Second, we argue that information in the global mediation marketplace becomes more accurate as the international system becomes more democratic because there is a wider network of vigilant free presses, which increases the costs of deception for potential mediators. Third, as disputants' ties to international organizations increase, this also raises the costs that mediators incur for dishonesty in the conflict management process because these institutions provide more frequent and accurate information about the disputants' capabilities and resolve. Empirical analyses of data on contentious issues (1816-2001) provide support for our theory, with third party conflict management occurring more frequently if a potential mediator is a democracy, and as the average global democracy level and the number of shared IO memberships between disputants rises. We also find that powerful states serve as mediators more often, and that trade ties, alliances, issue salience, and distance influence third party decisions to mediate. Mark J.C. Crescenzi http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/16 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/16 Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:59:46 PST International courts have proliferated in the international system in the past century, with one hundred judicial or quasi-judicial bodies currently in existence. While the supply of international courts has increased substantially, state level support for international courts varies across states, across courts, and over time. This paper focuses on the cross-sectional and temporal variation in state level support for a particular court, the International Criminal Court (ICC). The authors argue that domestic legal systems create different predispositions with respect to states' willingness to join adjudicatory bodies and the design of their commitments to international courts. Negotiators involved in the creation of the ICC pushed for rules and procedures that mimicked those of their domestic legal systems to help reduce uncertainty regarding the court's future behavior and decision-making processes. This interesting process of legal bargaining led to the creation of a sui generis court, one which represents a mixture of common law and civil law systems. The hybrid nature of the court's design enhanced the attractiveness of the court to civil and common law states, making them significantly more likely to sign and ratify the Rome Statute. Empirical models demonstrate that common and civil law states were fervent supporters of the ICC in preliminary negotiations and that they have shown higher levels of support for the Court since the ICC's inception in comparison to Islamic law or mixed law states. Emilia Justyna Powell http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/15 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/15 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:10:30 PST This article explores the evolutionary and endogenous relationship between democracy and war at the system level. Building on Kant, the authors argue that the rules and norms of behavior within and between democracies become more prevalent in international relations as the number of democracies in the system increases. The authors use Kalman filter analysis, which allows for the parameters in the models to vary over time. The results support the propositions that democratization tends to follow war, that democratization decreases the systemic amount of war, and that the substantive and pacific impact of democracy on war increases over time. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/14 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/14 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:04:51 PST Previously reported empirical evidence suggests that when conflict arises, military alliances are not reliable; state leaders should only expect their alliance partners to join them in war about 25% of the time. Yet, theoretical arguments explaining the choices of leaders to form cooperative agreements are at odds with such empirical evidence. This puzzling gap between theory and evidence motivates a reconsideration of previous measures of alliance reliability. Many alliance treaties include specific language regarding the circumstances under which the alliance comes into effect, often limiting obligations to disputes with specific target states or in specific geographic areas, and many treaties do not go so far as to require states to join in active fighting. Considering the specific obligations included in alliance agreements provides an improved estimate of the propensity of states to honor their commitments. Results show that alliances are reliable 74.5% of the time. Brett Ashley Leeds http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/13 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/13 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:30:12 PST This article introduces the Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions (ATOP) dataset. We begin by describing the rationale for collecting the ATOP data, its scope, and some general coding rules for the project. Then we offer some descriptive statistics for phase one of the dataset, which covers the years 1815-1944, and reveal some interesting trends in alliance politics. Finally, we replicate a study of alliance formation originally conducted by Lai and Reiter (2000) to demonstrate the effect the use of ATOP data may have on past inferences about alliance politics. Brett Leeds http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/12 http://works.bepress.com/sara_mitchell/12 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:47:43 PST We submit our recent systemic democratic peace research to the control variable doctrine of James Lee Ray, as codified in his 2003 treatise. In particular, we seek to determine whether international institutions intervene in the relationship between the democratic community's strength and the use and effectiveness of third party conflict management, whether hegemony is a competing explanation of third party settlement, and whether our extant model is robust when several control variables are specified. Two important conclusions are reached: (1) the democratic community's strength and institutional vitality promote third party mediation and its success, regardless of hegemonic might and other controls; and 2) Ray's teaching is properly understood as an exhortation for scholars to more carefully consider the theoretical role of each control variable and its proper treatment in statistical models, not as an edict banning the use of control variables. Kelly M. Kadera