The Experts below are selected from a list of 65313 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ted Hopf - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
identity legitimacy and the use of Military Force russia s great power identities and Military intervention in abkhazia
Review of International Studies, 2005Co-Authors: Ted HopfAbstract:An action is legitimate if the pertinent community deems it so. Most would agree that Russia’s conduct in the 1990s in Georgia was illegitimate. Military intervention in another state, unless the other state is preparing an imminent attack on one’s own territory, or is engaged in the systematic abuse of one’s own citizens, is a violation of the international norm of sovereignty, at a minimum. Some have argued that European politics has gone beyond this ‘territorial integrity norm’ to something more expansive, to a consensual renunciation of any and all territorial claims on other states. This was first codified in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975.
Michael T. Koch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Military intervention by powerful states 1945 2003
Journal of Peace Research, 2009Co-Authors: Patricia L. Sullivan, Michael T. KochAbstract:The Military Intervention by Powerful States (MIPS) project develops a rigorous, generalizable measure of the effectiveness of Military Force as a policy instrument and applies the measure to code the outcomes of all Military interventions conducted by five major powers since the termination of World War II. The MIPS dataset provides detailed data on US, British, Chinese, French, and Russian uses of Military Force against both state and non-state targets between 1946 and 2003. In particular, this project focuses on the political objectives strong states pursue through the use of Force, the human and material cost of their Military operations, and measures of intervention outcomes relative to the intervening states’ objectives. The dataset also includes extensive data on factors commonly hypothesized to be associated with war outcomes, such as the nature of the target, the type of Force used by the intervening state, and Military aid and assistance provided to each side.
Patricia L. Sullivan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the conditional impact of Military intervention on internal armed conflict outcomes
Conflict Management and Peace Science, 2015Co-Authors: Patricia L. Sullivan, Johannes KarrethAbstract:Previous studies of internal armed conflict outcomes have found evidence that rebel-biased Military intervention increases the likelihood of rebel victory, but little indication that pro-government interventions improve the odds of government victory. Our argument, grounded in a theory of the utility and limitations of Military Force in civil wars, anticipates that armed intervention increases the probability of victory for the supported side only when that belligerent’s primary challenge is a lack of conventional war-fighting capacity. Empirical analyses of internal armed conflicts from 1945 to 2010 support these expectations. Direct interventions in support of opposition movements have substantively large, robust effects on conflict outcomes. In contrast, government-biased interventions are only effective in increasing the odds of an outcome favorable to the government when the fighting capacity of rebel Forces matches or exceeds that of the state.
-
Military intervention by powerful states 1945 2003
Journal of Peace Research, 2009Co-Authors: Patricia L. Sullivan, Michael T. KochAbstract:The Military Intervention by Powerful States (MIPS) project develops a rigorous, generalizable measure of the effectiveness of Military Force as a policy instrument and applies the measure to code the outcomes of all Military interventions conducted by five major powers since the termination of World War II. The MIPS dataset provides detailed data on US, British, Chinese, French, and Russian uses of Military Force against both state and non-state targets between 1946 and 2003. In particular, this project focuses on the political objectives strong states pursue through the use of Force, the human and material cost of their Military operations, and measures of intervention outcomes relative to the intervening states’ objectives. The dataset also includes extensive data on factors commonly hypothesized to be associated with war outcomes, such as the nature of the target, the type of Force used by the intervening state, and Military aid and assistance provided to each side.
Peter B White - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
resolving civil wars before they start the un security council and conflict prevention in self determination disputes
British Journal of Political Science, 2017Co-Authors: Kyle Beardsley, David E Cunningham, Peter B WhiteAbstract:A large literature has demonstrated that international action can promote the resolution of civil wars. However, international actors do not wait until violence starts to seek to manage conflicts. This article considers the ways in which the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reduces the propensity for self-determination movements to escalate to civil war, through actions that directly pertain to the disputing actors or that indirectly shape actor incentives. It examines the relationship between the content of UNSC resolutions in all self-determination disputes from 1960 to 2005 and the onset of armed conflict in the disputes. The study finds that diplomatic actions that directly address disputes reduce the likelihood of armed conflict, and that Military Force and sanctions have more indirect preventive effects.
James Meernik - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
modeling international crises and the political use of Military Force by the usa
Journal of Peace Research, 2000Co-Authors: James MeernikAbstract:While the literature on the political use of Military Force by the USA has undergone tremendous growth in recent years, one crucial feature of this foreign policy activity has not been modeled - the conditions that give rise to the crises that precipitate a use of Force. It is possible that many of the findings on the diversionary use of Force obtain because of problems with selection effects. More uses of Force may occur during certain periods simply because more crises occur during these times. Therefore, I explain how we may model crisis occurrence and the use of Force to help us better understand the role of selection effects and the salience of domestic conditions in the decision to use Force. I outline several hypotheses regarding the influence of domestic and crisis-specific factors to predict when opportunities to use Force will occur and, given some opportunity, when a president will use Military Force. The results demonstrate that by not accounting for selection effects in the decision to use fo...
-
presidential decision making and the political use of Military Force
International Studies Quarterly, 1994Co-Authors: James MeernikAbstract:During the Cold War American presidents have used Military Force in support of U.S. foreign policy over 200 times (Blechman and Kaplan, 1978; Zelikow, 1986). In order to explain and predict this activity, I develop a model of presidential decision making that incorporates the concept of an "opportunity to use Force" which most previous research has neglected. I hypothesize that presidents are led to use greater levels of Military Force the greater the threat to the nation's overseas defense commitments and their own domestic reputation for taking Forceful action, and the less likely the threat of confrontation with the Soviet Union. I examine 458 international crises from 1948 through 1988, and using tobit analysis I find that most of the hypothesized relationships are statistically significant. The findings support the value of using opportunities to use Force as the unit of analysis and the greater impact of international versus domestic conditions in presidents' decision making.
