Popular consent and foreign policy choices: war against the Philippines and covert action in Chile

Kim, Jaechun; Hundt, David

doi:10.1080/10357718.2011.637317

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Covert use of force has become a hotly contested instrument of contemporary statecraft advocated by security advisers in democratic nations. The United States in particular has resorted to covert military activities and clandestine interventions against other elected governments and supported coercive actions against individuals under the pretext of the war on terror (Forsythe 1992; Kegley and Hermann 1995; Kim and Hundt 2012).…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To preserve legitimacy and engage in militarized hostilities toward another democracy, a democratic nation may (1) deny that it is a democracy, (2) deny that its target is a democracy, or (3) hide its actions from the public. The first option is comparatively rare, the second option is popular (e.g., British response to Falklands/Malvinas invasion) but is not always possible (Kim & Hundt, 2012 We used the Correlates of War Project (CoW; Ghoson & Palmer, 2003) to define the overt occurrences of militarized inter-state disputes (MID), the Polity IV dataset (Gurr, Jaggers, and Moore, 1989;Marshall and Jaggers, 2005) to ascertain the level of democracy of nations involved in the disputes (on a 0 -10 scale), and developed our own database of US-involved covert military operations from 1949 to 2000.…”

Section: Study 3: Democratic Warfare and Us Covert Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, one can impugn the democratic nature of a state targeted for violence; they are perceived as nondemocratic by the aggressing state. Finally, the very nature of covert operations—hidden from the public eye—makes them consistent with the democratic peace because they imply the concern of the democratic leaders with public opinion and fear of political consequences for the unpopular attack on another democracy (Kim and Hundt 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Covert Operations, Wars, Detainee Destinations, and the Psychology of Democratic Peace

Crandall

Cox

Beasley

et al. 2016

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore US covert forcible actions against democratic governments and their citizens and show that inter-democratic use of covert force is common and can be accommodated within the theory of democratic peace. Grounded in the Perceptual Theory of Legitimacy, we argue that democracies are constrained by public perceptions of their legitimacy from overtly aggressing against other democratic states. When democracies desire to aggress against their democratic counterparts they will do so covertly. We test the assumptions of the theory and its implication with (1) laboratory studies of the conflation of democracy with ally status, and (2) historical analyses of covert militarized actions and prisoner detention, which show that US forcible actions, when carried out against democracies and their citizens, are carried out clandestinely. Abstract: 123 wordsCovert

show abstract

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study 3: Democratic Warfare and Us Covert Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Covert Operations, Wars, Detainee Destinations, and the Psychology of Democratic Peace

Crandall

Cox

Beasley

et al. 2016

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The democratic-peace thesis-the proposition that stable democracies do not fight wars with one anothercontinues to occupy a prominent place in the study and practice of international relations (Dafoe, Oneal, and Russett 2013;Gartzke and Weisiger 2013;Mousseau 2013;Ray 2013). Notwithstanding the staggering volume of scholarship over the last three decades, however, a surprisingly scant literature directly grapples with the relationship between covert war and the democratic peace (Forsythe 1992;James and Mitchell 1995;Downes and Lilley 2010;Kim and Hundt 2012). This lacuna is troubling.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stasis or Decay? Reconciling Covert War and the Democratic Peace

Poznansky

2015

Int Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democratic states sometimes engage in covert interventions—sometimes involving forcible regime change—against other democracies. Critics charge that these interventions raise doubts about the robustness of the “democratic peace.” I argue that they require analysts to rethink some aspects of democratic‐peace theory. Democratic states base their behavior toward other democracies on expectations about the future trajectory of their regimes: whether, and to what extent, those states will likely remain democratic in the future. When they expect democracy to persist, the constraints of the democratic peace operate. But when democracies expect another state's democratic character to break down, or decay, they prove more willing to engage in covert forcible regime change. I test my dynamic version of democratic‐peace theory by examining US efforts to forcibly depose Iran's Mohammed Mossadegh (1953) and Chile's Salvador Allende (1970–1973). The framework developed here helps to resolve a longstanding anomaly for the democratic peace—secret interventions between democracies—while also providing policymakers with a clearer sense of the stakes associated with covert democracy promotion and subversion.

show abstract

“…Jaechun Kim and David Hundt, “Popular Consent and Foreign Policy Choices: War Against the Philippines and Covert Action in Chile,” Australian Journal of International Affairs , 66‐1 (2012), pp. 52–69.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Free Trade Agreements and US Foreign Policy

Hundt¹

2015

Pacific Focus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States has completed numerous free trade agreements (FTAs), but the pattern of these agreements defies conventional explanations. Arguments that are based on domestic interests and economic gains cannot explain the comparative under-performance of US trade agreements. The pattern of US trade agreements is also inconsistent with explanations that focus on state power, which depict FTAs as a "reward" for loyal clients. This article finds a better explanation for the pattern of the United States' FTAs by considering the systemic level of analysis, and in particular the dynamics of the international economic order. It illustrates that strong competition for bilateral trade agreements has resulted in patterns of agreements that the United States cannot easily dominate. This is not to say that the United States has no capacity to finalize trade agreements: the United States remains the world's most influential nation-state, but the constraints of the international system necessarily limit the degree to which FTAs can serve the interests of US foreign economic policy. The recent evolution of international trade politics, however, indicates that smaller states are comparatively less vulnerable to pressure from great powers, such as the United States.

show abstract

Popular consent and foreign policy choices: war against the Philippines and covert action in Chile

Cited by 3 publications

References 9 publications

Covert Operations, Wars, Detainee Destinations, and the Psychology of Democratic Peace

Covert Operations, Wars, Detainee Destinations, and the Psychology of Democratic Peace

Stasis or Decay? Reconciling Covert War and the Democratic Peace

Free Trade Agreements and US Foreign Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About