(Non)Intervention in Intra-State Conflicts

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. The UN Goldstone Report and Retraction: An Empirical Investigation Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe United Nations Goldstone Report criminalized self-defense against state-sponsored or stateperpetrated terror. We use voting on the two UN General Assembly resolutions relating to the Goldstone Report to study whether support for the Goldstone principle of criminalization of self-defense against terror was influenced by countries' political institutions. Our results, using two different measures of political institutions, reveal systematic differences in voting by democracies and autocracies: as an example, based on the Chief-in-Executive measure of political institutions, a country with the highest democracy score was some 55 percentage points less likely to vote in favor of the second of the two UN Goldstone resolutions and some 55 percentage points more likely to abstain than a country with the highest autocratic score. The differences between democracies and autocracies in willingness to initiate symmetric welfare are therefore also reflected in differences in sensitivities to loss of life and harm in asymmetric warfare, through broad support by democracies, but not by autocracies, for legitimacy of selfdefense against state-supported or state-perpetrated terror.

show abstract

“…13 For a general analysis of the role of third parties in conflict, see, for example, Siqueira (2003) and Amegashie and Kutsoati (2007).…”

Section: The First Goldstone Resolution Was Supported By 114 Governmementioning

confidence: 99%

The UN Goldstone Report and retraction: an empirical investigation

Hillman

Potrafke

2015

Public Choice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Favretto (2009) presents a model that shows that expected biased interventions may be desirable because they force bargainers in a conflict to reach a settlement. Amegashie and Kutsoati (2007) endogenized a third-party's choice of her ally while Amegashie (2010), Carment and Rowlands (1998), Rowlands and Carment (2006), Siqueira (2003), and Chang, Potter, and Sanders (2007) took the third-party's ally as exogenously given. Amegashie and Kutsoati (2007) endogenized a third-party's choice of her ally while Amegashie (2010), Carment and Rowlands (1998), Rowlands and Carment (2006), Siqueira (2003), and Chang, Potter, and Sanders (2007) took the third-party's ally as exogenously given.…”

Section: Are Interventions Biased and Should They Be?mentioning

confidence: 99%

On Third-Party Intervention in Conflicts: An Economist's View

Amegashie

2011

Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brought to you by | Oakland University Authenticated Download Date | 6/9/15 3:47 AM 1 See Blattman and Miguel (2010) and Collier and Hoeffler (2007) for surveys of the literature. 2 Favretto (2009) studies a model that examines both mediation and military intervention. Dixon (1996) found that mediation efforts and third-party activities to open or maintain lines of communication are the most effective to resolving conflicts.

show abstract

“…5 These contributions include Agesa (2004), Agesa and Agesa (2002), Agesa et al (2006), Ahiakpor (1995), Alexis (1999), Allen and Ndikumana (2000), Amegashie and Kutsoati (2007), America (1999), Anderson (1998), Andrews (1987Andrews ( , 1993, Asea (1996), Asiedu and Freeman (2007), Assane and Grammy (2003), Baffoe-Bonnie and EzealaHarrison (1996), Belton (1997), Benoit (1999), Betsey (2005), Black (1999), Bostic (2003), Boston (1995), Bradford (2003), Brewer and Jackson (2000), Brimmer (2002), Brown (1976), Carpenter (1999), Charles and Stephens (2006), Chiteji and Hamilton (2002), Christopher (1998), Coleman (1999, Collins (2004), Conrad and Sharpe (1996), Coppin (2000), Cotton (1988Cotton ( , 1998, Darity (2002), Didia (1997), Dompere (1993), Ekanem (2002), Elu (2000), Fayissa (2001), Fryer (2007, Fosu (2006), Gaskin et al (2005), ...…”

Section: Conclusion: Black Economists Of the World-you Cite!!mentioning

confidence: 99%

NEA Presidential Address: Black Economists of the World you Cite!!

Price

2008

The Review of Black Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economists who publish research in the economics and political economy of race seem averse to citing similar research by black economists. As citations are an important determinant of success as a research economist, black economists can possibly offset the aversion of non-black economists in citing black economists, by citing black economists themselves. This NEA Presidential address considers the relevance of black economist citations, and evaluates the extent to which black economists cite other black economists.

show abstract

(Non)Intervention in Intra-State Conflicts

Cited by 16 publications

References 28 publications

The UN Goldstone Report and retraction: an empirical investigation

The UN Goldstone Report and retraction: an empirical investigation

On Third-Party Intervention in Conflicts: An Economist's View

NEA Presidential Address: Black Economists of the World you Cite!!

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About