The Experts below are selected from a list of 25038 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Elena Ianchovichina - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Polarization, Foreign Military Intervention, and Civil Conflict - Polarization, foreign Military Intervention, and civil conflict
Journal of Development Economics, 2019Co-Authors: Suleiman Abu Bader, Elena IanchovichinaAbstract:In a behavioral model of civil conflict, foreign Military Intervention alters the resources available to warring groups and their probability of winning. The model highlights the importance of distributional measures along with the modifying effect of the Intervention for conflict incidence. The paper confirms empirically the finding in the literature that ethnic polarization is a robust predictor of civil war, but it also finds evidence that religious polarization is positively and significantly associated with civil conflict in the presence of foreign Military Intervention of non-humanitarian and non-neutral nature. Such external Interventions exacerbate religious polarization, leading to high-intensity conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa region, but not in the rest of the world. These results suggest that, unlike in the rest of the world, where civil conflicts are mostly about a public prize linked to ethnic polarization, in the Middle East and North Africa they are mostly about a sectarian-related public prize. The results are robust to allowing different definitions of conflict, model specifications, and data time spans, and to controlling for other types of foreign Military Interventions.
-
polarization foreign Military Intervention and civil conflict
Journal of Development Economics, 2017Co-Authors: Suleiman Abu Bader, Elena IanchovichinaAbstract:In a behavioral model of civil conflict, foreign Military Intervention alters the resources available to warring groups and their probability of winning. The model highlights the importance of distributional measures along with the modifying effect of the Intervention for conflict incidence. The paper confirms empirically the finding in the literature that ethnic polarization is a robust predictor of civil war, but it also finds evidence that religious polarization is positively and significantly associated with civil conflict in the presence of foreign Military Intervention of non-humanitarian and non-neutral nature. Such external Interventions exacerbate religious polarization, leading to high-intensity conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa region, but not in the rest of the world. These results suggest that, unlike in the rest of the world, where civil conflicts are mostly about a public prize linked to ethnic polarization, in the Middle East and North Africa they are mostly about a sectarian-related public prize. The results are robust to allowing different definitions of conflict, model specifications, and data time spans, and to controlling for other types of foreign Military Interventions.
Dursun Peksen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
does foreign Military Intervention help human rights
Political Research Quarterly, 2012Co-Authors: Dursun PeksenAbstract:This article examines the effect of foreign armed Intervention on human rights conditions in target countries. It is argued that Military Intervention contributes to the rise of state repression by enhancing the state’s coercive power and encouraging more repressive behavior, especially when it is supportive or neutral towards the target government. Results from bivariate probit models estimated on time-series cross-section data show that supportive and neutral Interventions increase the likelihood of extra-judicial killing, disappearance, political imprisonment, and torture. Hostile Interventions increase only the probability of political imprisonment. The involvement of an intergovernmental organization or a liberal democracy as an intervener is unlikely to make any major difference in the suggested negative impact of Intervention.
-
Foreign Military Intervention and women’s rights:
Journal of Peace Research, 2011Co-Authors: Dursun PeksenAbstract:A large body of scholarly work has been devoted to the possible consequences of foreign Military Intervention for the target state. This literature, however, tends to be state-centric and mostly neglects the insight from gender-specific theoretical and empirical perspectives. The purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which Military Intervention affects women's rights. It is argued that unilateral Interventions are prone to diminishing women's status by encouraging the persistence or creation of repressive regimes and contributing to political disorder in the target state. If the use of armed forces ever helps or causes no damage to women's well-being, it will likely be during Interventions led by intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). This is because IGO Interventions are unlikely to protect or support an authoritarian, patriarchal political system. Furthermore, such multilateral missions will increase international awareness of women's status along with other human rights issues in the target society, thereby creating more pressure on the government to enforce women's rights. To empirically substantiate these arguments, three different indicators that tap socio-economic and political aspects of women's status are used, including the indices of women's economic, political, and social rights from the Cingranelli-Richards database. The results indicate that while women's political and economic status suffer most during unilateral US Interventions, IGO Interventions are likely to have a positive influence on women's political rights. Non-US unilateral Interventions, on the other hand, are unlikely to cause any major change in women's status. Finally, Military Interventions in general have no major statistically significant impact on women's social rights.
Emizet F. Kisangani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Foreign Military Intervention and post-colonial state-building: An actor-centric analysis:
Conflict Management and Peace Science, 2013Co-Authors: Jeffrey Pickering, Emizet F. KisanganiAbstract:In an era where state borders are relatively fixed and interstate wars are uncommon, it seems wise to begin to look beyond full-scale war when examining the relationship between Military force and state-building. We thus examine the impact that a low-scale form of armed force, foreign Military Intervention, has on state-building in post-colonial countries. Using selectorate theory within an actor-centric framework, we hypothesize that certain democratic interveners tend to have a positive impact on post-colonial state-building efforts, while non-democratic and intergovernmental organization interveners have little if any impact. We test our theory using interrupted time series methodology in panel corrected standard error estimates of 80 countries from 1972 to 2002. While our empirical results are somewhat mixed, they demonstrate that different sets of interveners do have different state-building impacts.
-
the international Military Intervention dataset an updated resource for conflict scholars
Journal of Peace Research, 2009Co-Authors: Jeffrey Pickering, Emizet F. KisanganiAbstract:As major wars have become uncommon over recent decades and the efficacy of economic sanctions is questioned, foreign Military Intervention seems to have become increasingly prevalent on the international scene. Military Intervention has also gained a degree of moral legitimacy, as it is now often launched for humanitarian ends rather than simply to further the intervener's strategic or material interests. Despite the apparent increase in the use of foreign Military Intervention as a policy tool in recent years, the quantitative international conflict literature continues to operate without either a comprehensive or a current inventory of foreign Military Interventions. The authors attempt to fill this gap by updating Pearson & Baumann's International Military Intervention (IMI) dataset from 1989 to 2005. IMI has a number of attributes that should make it attractive to quantitative international conflict scholars. One is that it is one of a small handful of interstate conflict datasets that attempts to discern the motives behind state uses of force. Also, its substantive coverage is broad, allowing researchers to separate out and focus on the forms of Intervention (supportive, hostile, humanitarian, territorial, etc.) that are relevant to their research. As a preliminary validity test of the updated data, the authors analyze patterns of Cold War and post-Cold War Military Intervention in the IMI collection to see if they correspond with conventional wisdom on real world events.
-
political economic and social consequences of foreign Military Intervention
Political Research Quarterly, 2006Co-Authors: Jeffrey Pickering, Emizet F. KisanganiAbstract:Foreign Military Intervention is one of the most common types of interstate Military force used over recent decades. As war’s costliness increases and the efficacy of economic sanctions and other foreign policy tools is increasingly questioned, it may become even more prevalent. Unfortunately, the field of international relations has little systematic understanding of the types of impacts such Military ventures can have on target states in the developing world. In PCSE AR1 regressions of 106 developing countries from 1960 to 2002, we find that large scale foreign Military Interventions, which have over 1000 intervening troops, do not leave a significant imprint on governing institutions, economic growth rates, or physical quality of life in developing democracies. The same cannot be said for non-democratic states in the developing world. Hostile Interventions can help to democratize non-democratic targets, while rival Interventions lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.