Are Military Regimes Really Belligerent?

نویسنده

  • Nam Kyu Kim
چکیده

Does military rule make a state more belligerent internationally? Several studies have recently established that military autocracies are more likely than civilian autocracies to deploy and use military force in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. I argue that military regimes are more likely to resort to military force because they are located in more hostile security environments, and not because they are inherently aggressive. First, I show that rule by military institution is more likely to emerge and exist in states facing external territorial threats. Second, by examining the relationship between military autocracies and conflict initiation, I find that once I control for states’ territorial threats, the statistical association between military regimes and conflict initiation disappears. Additionally, more evidence suggests that civilian dictatorships are more conflict-prone than their military counterparts when I account for unobserved dyad heterogeneity. The results are consistent across different measures of international conflict and authoritarian regimes. ∗An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2016 MPSA Annual Conference. †Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]. Since Geddes’s (2003) notable statement that authoritarian regimes differ from each other as much as they differ from democracies, a growing body of literature has paid attention to the institutional heterogeneity among autocracies to explain various outcomes. An increasing number of studies on international conflict have examined how dictatorships differ from each other in their propensity to engage in belligerent international behavior. Particularly, three seminal studies (Lai and Slater 2006, Debs and Goemans 2010, Weeks 2012) have recently established that military autocracies are more likely than civilian autocracies to deploy and use military force in pursuit of foreign policy objectives. These studies attribute military regimes’ relative conflict proneness to various sources: their lack of institutional power leading to regime’s insecurity (Lai and Slater 2006), to the harsh, post-exit punishments military rulers face (Debs and Goemans 2010), or to ruling elites’ military backgrounds (Weeks 2012, 2014). This research is indicative of a growing scholarly interest in examining the linkage between domestic politics and international affairs. While recognizing the contributions of these studies, I argue that the “military belligerence hypothesis” must be subjected to further critical scrutiny. These previous studies pay little attention to the fact that political regimes are not randomly assigned across countries and over time. Drawing on the the peace-to-democracy and territorial peace literatures (Gibler 2012, Hintze 1975, Rasler and Thompson 2004, Thompson 1996), I argue that military regimes are more likely to emerge and exist in states facing sustained territorial threats. Salient territorial threats produce high levels of militarization, which expands and politically empowers the military. Thus, the military’s capacity to intervene in politics increases when the country is exposed to salient external threats. If this is the case, territorial threats from neighboring countries may be causally responsible for generating both military regimes and militaristic behavior. That is, military regimes may be more likely to resort to military force or threat of military force because they are located in more hostile security environments, not because they are either institutionally fragile or predisposed toward using force. if as the I interchangeably use the terms autocracy, authoritarian regime, and dictatorship.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel

Since the 1967 War, in the course of which Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza, the Supreme Court of Israel has considered thousands of petitions relating to acts of the military and other authorities in those territories (OT). This article reviews the contribution to the law of belligerent occupation of the Court’s jurisprudence in these cases. After discussing issues of jurisdiction and th...

متن کامل

Institutions of the Offensive : Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes , 1950 – 1992

What are the most important sources of institutional variation among authoritarian regimes, and how do such institutions influence these dictatorships’ propensity to initiate military disputes? This article argues that most existing studies in both comparative politics and international relations employ a flawed conceptualization of authoritarian institutions. Excessive focus on the personaliza...

متن کامل

Copyright (c) 1999 University of Miami Law Review

... Democracy is the anti-subordination perspective. ... Some of the most important limits to democracy are not incidental or accidental: they are critical, systemic, structural, and delib erate. ... With the coming to power of successive conservative administra tions pledging a "return to democracy" some aspects of "really existing democracy" have been consolidated while poverty and economic i...

متن کامل

War News and Exchange Rates during World War I: the Eastern versus the Western Front∗

Using a newly compiled dataset on prisoners of war and on soldiers killed and wounded on the Eastern and Western Fronts of World War I, this paper shows that changes in the exchange rate among the currencies of the belligerent countries were associated with good or bad news from the battlefield. Prospects of losing the war depreciated a country’s currency because a defeat would increase the lik...

متن کامل

Sources of Corruption in Authoritarian Regimes

Objectives. We seek to investigate the determinants of corruption in authoritarian polities. We hypothesize that corruption in nondemocratic settings will be greater where the ruling group is personalistic rather than a political party or a military clique and that it will be greater where rulers expect to remain in power longer. We construct a new operationalization of the selectorate theory a...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2016