Articles are to be downloaded from this page only in accordance with the conditions of fair use under copyright law: To be used only for not-for-profit and productive purposes (e.g., teaching and scholarship). Any use in teaching or scholarship is to be accompanied by full citation information, including credit given to the author(s).
"Brexit, the Border, and Political Conflict Narratives in Northern Ireland." (2019 forthcoming). Co-authored with Andrew Owsiak. Irish Studies in International Affairs.
Abstract: What effect, if any, does (or will) Brexit have on the Northern Irish peace process? We propose that Brexit threatens the peace process in two main ways. First and foremost, it undermines at least one strand of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement. By necessitating a border somewhere between the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland, Brexit weakens either north-south or east-west relations. Second, and more importantly, it incentivizes a resurgence in parties’ conflict narratives. Because border placement ultimately indicates whether the Northern Irish territory is trending toward the UK or Ireland, represents a political shock that needs interpretation, and creates an entrepreneurial opportunity to re-open past negotiations, parties return to and resurrect their (more latent) conflict narratives. Our research shows evidence of these trends, with particular attention given to dissident republican groups. These groups use Brexit to: stress the failure of the mainstream republican movement’s political strategy; re-open the constitutional question; challenge the European Union’s economic policy; and reinforce their credentials as ‘true’ republicans and revolutionaries. Such trends need not imply that large-scale violence awaits; rather, they suggest a risk that the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement (partially) unravels and with it, the peace process itself.
"The Movement Moves Against You: Coercive Spoiler Management in the Northern Ireland Peace Process." (2016) Terrorism & Political Violence DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2016.1192540
Abstract: More than a decade on, the Northern Ireland peace process can largely be considered a success. Despite the failure of the Provisional Republican Movement to achieve a united Ireland free of British control, the large-scale violence of ‘The Troubles’ has been relegated to the past. Based on the logic of coercive diplomacy, this study examines the role of threats and the use of selective and limited violence by the Provisional Movement to manage real and potential opponents and challengers that have emerged within its own ideological ranks, to maintain its position of dominance, and to prevent a spoiling of the peace process. This study shows that the Provisional Movement had retained both the capability and demonstrated a willingness to use coercive force against its opponents on the Republican spectrum, and was able to do so with a high degree of impunity.
"Sumggler's Blues: Examining Why Countries Become Narcotics Transit States Using the New INAPT (International Narcotics Production and Transit) Dataset." (2014) Co-authored with Byungwon Woo. International Interactions
Abstract: We examine the global determinants of the illicit international narcotics trade and the specific roles that states play in it, a topic understudied by international relations scholars. We develop the first comprehensive global dataset of state involvement in international narcotics trafficking and then use the dataset to empirically test hypotheses concerning the likelihood of countries to serve as transit states for the transshipment of illicit drugs. We find that more globalized countries are more likely to act as transit states and that the size of the economy is positively related to the probability of acting as a transit state as is state corruption and a weak rule of law. States with a more stable political environment are also more likely to be transit states.
"Rogue States and Territorial Disputes." (2014) Co-authored with Sara McLaughlin Mitchell. Conflict Management and Peace Science DOI: 10.1177/0738894213508711
Abstract: This article examines whether rogue states are more aggressive in challenging other states' claims to territory in comparison with non-rogue states. Rogue states are defined as those which systematically violate accepted international human rights norms of gender and ethnic nondiscrimination and protection from state repression. Hypotheses suggest that states that routinely violate international human rights norms are more likely to challenge other states' territorial claims and the dyads with rogue states are more likely to experience territorial claims. Empirical analyses of data from two datasets on territorial claims provide support to the theory. Territorial claims are more likely in politically relevant dyads as the potential challenger's rogue state score increases. Territorial claims are also more likely to emerge as the minimum rogue state score in a dyad increases. The substantive effect of rogue status is sizable, increasing the chances for a territorial claim by as much as 500%.
"Running on Foreign Policy? Examining the Role of Foreign Policy Issues in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 Congressional Campaigns." (2012) Co-authored with David A. Dulio. Foreign Policy Analysis, doi: 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2012.00187.x
Abstract: While there is a long, rich tradition of scholarship on the impact of foreign policy on presidential campaigns and elections, the question of the role of foreign policy concerns in congressional elections has been left largely unexplored. This is particularly surprising given that scholars have in recent years highlighted the significant impact of Congress on American foreign policy both as an institution and as the result of the foreign policy activism of individual members. This earlier research indicates that the role of foreign policy in congressional campaigns and elections deserves much more attention than it has so far received. In this project, we examine the use of foreign policy in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 congressional campaigns, analyzing the issue content of television advertisements produced by candidates seeking election to the US House of Representatives. We find that across the three election cycles, foreign policy issues became much more prominent over time but still remained a modest part of candidates' appeals to potential voters. We also find differences between candidates rooted in partisan identification and perceptions of policy performance on key foreign policy issues, and strong indications that candidates emphasize foreign policy issues that have significant local impact.
"American Newspaper Coverage of the US Invasion of Panama: Neither Cheerleaders nor Critics but a Little Bit of Both." (2011) In Global Media Perspectives on the Crisis in Panama, Howard M. Hensel and Nelson Michaud (eds.), Ashgate.
Abstract: The news media occupies a critical key role in the American foreign policy process. As Powlick and Katz have explained, media coverage is the vehicle through which foreign policy issues become known to the public, and the nature of that coverage largely determines whether public opinion becomes activated and can thus in turn influence policy. ... As will be shown, there was a remarkable consistency in terms of the manner in which American newspapers, both national papers and others across the country with regional circulation bases, covered events in Panama and in the generally positive tone of that reporting. Given that consistency in coverage it should come as little surprise that the American people ... expressed strong support for the US military operation. If media coverage can have such a profound effect on public opinion, it becomes imperative that we seek to understand the factors that influence what the media decides to report and how it does that reporting.
"Transnational Mergers and Acquisitions: The Impact of FDI on Human Rights, 1981-2006." (2010) Co-authored with Dong-Hun Kim. Journal of Peace Research 47(6) 723-734
Abstract: While globalization advocates have argued that market liberalization and economic integration will strengthen human rights by promoting economic development and facilitating the diffusion of rights-supportive norms and values, critics contend that the same processes threaten to undermine human rights through economic exploitation and the repressive actions of pro-growth governments. To contribute to this debate, the authors examine the relationship between one aspect of economic globalization, foreign direct investment, and human rights performance. But the authors go beyond existing studies of the human rights impact of foreign direct investment, which generally lump all forms of FDI into a single aggregate indicator, by focusing on one specific form of FDI, transnational mergers and acquisitions (M&As). This is a particularly important area to explore given the human rights literature's emphasis on multinational corporations as both potential violators or human rights and as catalysts for improvements in human rights performance. This study examines the impact of cross-border M&As, which have become an increasingly prominent form of foreign direct investment over the last 25 years, on human rights performance globally from 1981 through 2006. The results of the statistical analysis show that transnational mergers and acquisitions have a positive impact on human rights conditions across several indicators, including physical integrity rights, empowerment rights, workers' rights, and women's economic rights. This positive impact of cross-border M&As is particularly pronounced in developing countries.
"Running on Iraq or Running from Iraq? Conditional Issue Ownership in the 2006 Midterm Elections." (2009) Co-authored with David A. Dulio. Political Research Quarterly 62(2): 230-243.
Abstract: The authors examine the role of Iraq as a campaign issue in the 2006 midterm elections, analyzing more than 400 television advertisements produced by ninety-four candidates in forty-seven competitive races for the U.S. House of Representatives. Generally, the authors find that the issue of the war was not as central an element of candidate appeals as the conventional wisdom and media storyline leading up to Election Day implied. On the issue of Iraq, as well as other issues central to 2006, the authors find evidence that challengers pursued different issue strategies than either incumbents or open-seat candidates of the same party.
"Looking Back, Looking Ahead: Presidential Politics in 2008 and 2009." (2009 invited.) Co-authored with David A. Dulio. The Oakland Journal 16 (winter): 11-22.
Abstract: In this article ... we take a brief look back at the 2008 election and consider why it turned out the way it did, and look ahead to 2009 and beyond to consider the prospects for the new Obama Administration in both domestic and foreign policy. The challenges that confront President Obama and his team early in their first term are not only some of the most demanding than an incoming president has had to deal with, but are also likely to affect what he and his team can accomplish during his time in office.
"Sharing Power to Settle Civil Wars." (2008) Book review (invited). International Studies Review 10(3):616-618.
Abstract: In Crafting Peace, Caroline Hartzell and Matthew Hoddie intend to show that enduring settlements to civil wars can be created through the careful crafting of agreements that institutionalize comprehensive power-sharing arrangements among former combatants. In some regards this is well-trodden territory ...
"Human Rights Rogues: Aggressive, Dangerous, or Both?" (2007) Co-authored with Mary Caprioli. In Worst of the Worst: Dealing with Repressive and Rogue Nations, Robert I. Rotberg (ed.). Brookings Institution Press.
Abstract: Are rogue states more violent or dangerous than other international actors, and can they be identified on the basis of objective criteria? The concept of the rogue state, which became a prominent part of American foreign policy discourse and planning with the end of the cold war, is based upon the premise that states that consistently violate important international norms of behavior represent particular dangers to the international order. Yet the question of which countries warrant the rogue state label has been controversial. This chapter show[s] that persistent violators of human rights - in short, human rights rogues - present specific threats to international security through their involvement in the troubling behaviors that American foreign policymakers came to focus on after the end of the cold war.
"The Democrats are Back in Charge, So What?" (2007 invited). Co-authored with David A. Dulio. The Oakland Journal 12(Winter):21-38.
Abstract: “War Weary Voters Seek Change.” This was the Associated Press headline that led news accounts in several papers across the United States after the November 7, 2006 midterm election results had been tallied giving Democrats control of both chambers of Congress. But this begs the question: What’s likely to change now that Democrats have retaken control of the Congress? We believe we will see probably a lot less change than one might think and than many of the voters who cast ballots on Election Day may want.
"First Use of Violent Force in Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1980-2001." (2006) Co-authored with Mary Caprioli. Journal of Peace Research 43(6): 741-749.
Abstract: The authors introduce and describe a new variable for interstate conflict research for use in conjunction with the Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID) dataset. This variable, First Use of Violent Force (FUVF), covers the period 1980–2001 and identifies which state involved in a violent militarized interstate dispute was the first to actually use violence rather than threatening or displaying force. This article introduces the variable, which, along with all of the supporting documentation, is now publicly available, describes its creation, discusses its utility, and uses both multivariate regression and measures of association to draw attention to theoretically interesting patterns in first use of violent force that are worthy of further exploration. The authors find that non-democratic states are more likely than democracies to be the first to resort to violent force when involved in a militarized interstate dispute; also, minor powers are more likely to use violent force first, compared with major powers. Measures of association also indicate that states that use violent force first in a MID are much more likely to be revisionist states, but that first users of violent force are unlikely to achieve victory in the dispute as a result.
"Human Rights Rogues in Interstate Disputes, 1980-2001." (2006) Co-authored with Mary Caprioli. Journal of Peace Research 43(2): 131-148.
Abstract: Rogue states have typically been characterized as those states that consistently violate accepted international norms of behavior. While US foreign policymakers and policy analysts have identified rogue states as those violating a narrow set of international norms of external conduct, specifically terrorism sponsorship and illicit pursuit of banned weapons, this article proposes an alternative understanding of rogue state status that harks back to earlier notions of international pariah states, isolated from the rest of international society, owing to their egregious treatment of their own citizens. Building on Galtung’s concept of structural violence and feminist insights concerning the interconnectedness of violence at all levels of human society, the authors develop a rogue state index to identify human rights rogues, based on ethnic and gender discrimination and the violation of personal integrity rights. An important part of the rogue state formula developed by policymakers over the recent decades is the expectation that such states represent dangers to international peace and stability. Focusing on the recognized international human rights norms of non-discrimination and security of person, and informed by the causal mechanisms inherent in the normative explanation for the democratic peace, this article tests whether human rights rogues are more likely to become involved in militarized interstate conflicts and violent interstate conflicts. The results of the analysis show that human rights rogues are more likely to become involved in militarized interstate disputes in general, and violent interstate disputes specifically, than other states during the period 1980–2001, suggesting that policymakers must keep a close watch on serial human rights abusers, while seeking to identify future threats to international security.
"Teaching Theories of International Political Economy from the Pit: A Simple In-Class Simulation." (2006) co-authored with Mark A. Boyer and David O. Fricke. International Studies Perspectives 7(1): 67-76.
Abstract: Helping students understand abstract theories and concepts and how they apply to their everyday lives and the world around them is one of the most difficult tasks confronting a college teacher. Taking the task a step further by trying to demonstrate the ways in which the theoretical lenses used by analysts color their analyses and conclusions about real-world events is even more difficult. Using the family card game Pit as the tool, students can get a relatively realistic feel for how the structure of trading relationships, as reflected in theoretical constructs, determine (or at least condition and direct) the outcomes of international exchange and who wins and who loses in the international system. This article lays out the basic logic of the game and then develops the substance of the simulation for international relations courses. We also provide some insights into the applications of this simulation beyond international relations classes. Discussion of debriefing and student assessment of the experience is also provided.
“Rhetoric vs. Reality: Rogue States in International Conflict, 1980-2001,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(5), 2005: 770-791. (Co-authored with Mary Caprioli.)
Abstract: The term rogue state has become part of the common language of American foreign policy, and the assumptions made by policy makers about the international conduct of these actors—that they represent aggressive threats to international peace and security—have become entrenched at the center of U.S. foreign and defense policies. The central assumption of rogue state aggressiveness, however, has not been empirically tested. This project fills that gap. The authors first identify those states that, since 1980, have consistently been described as rogues by policy makers, as well as other states that evince the objective characteristics said to qualify a state for rogue status. When the authors examine these states' interstate conflict behavior as a group, they find that they are no more likely to become involved in militarized interstate disputes, no more likely to initiate militarized action, and no more likely to use force first than nonrogue states.
"Victims or Aggressors? Ethno-Political Rebellion and Use of Force in Militarized Interstate Disputes." (2003) International Studies Quarterly 47(2): 183-201.
Abstract: Current scholarship on the international relations of ethnic conflict holds that such domestic-level conflict can spread to become interstate conflict. Empirical research, theoretical discussions, and case studies have concluded that states suffering from violent ethnic conflict, specifically ethno-political rebellion, can be either the victims of aggression or themselves the aggressors when ethnic conflict spreads to the international level. From both a scholarly perspective and the standpoint of policymaking it is important to know which possibility is more likely. This paper examines the behavior of states involved in militarized interstate disputes to test two possibilities: first, that states contending with ethnic rebellion are more likely to be the victims of aggression by outside actors. Alternatively, that states contending with ethnic rebellion are more likely to take aggressive action against outside states. Statistical analysis of ethnic rebellion data and militarized interstate dispute data covering the period 1980-1992 finds that states suffering from ethnic rebellion are more likely to use force and use force first when involved in international disputes than states without similar insurgency problems.
"Identifying 'Rogue' States and Testing their Interstate Conflict Behavior." (2003) Co-authored with Mary Caprioli. European Journal of International Relations 9(3): 377-406.
Abstract: We explore and define the concept of a ‘rogue’ state based on a state’s domestic patterns of behavior. We combine measures of domestic gender equality, ethnic discrimination and state repression to identify characteristics of rogue states. Once we have identified rogue states, we perform logistic regression to predict whether rogue states are more likely to be the aggressors during international disputes — whether they are more likely to use force first during interstate conflict, controlling for other possible causes of state use of force. This research adds to a growing body of scholarship in International Relations regarding the behavior of states involved in conflict, which demonstrates that states with higher levels of inequality, repression and violence exhibit higher levels of violence during international disputes and during international crises. This argument is most fully developed within feminist scholarship; however, research in the field of ethnopolitical conflict has also highlighted the negative impact of domestic discrimination and violence on state behavior at the international level.
"Ethnic Discrimination and Interstate Violence: Testing the International Impact of Domestic Behavior." (2003) Co-authored with Mary Caprioli. Journal of Peace Research 40(1): 5-23.
Abstract: It has been shown in the work of Ted Gurr and others that ethnic discrimination can lead to ethnopolitical rebellion, and that rebellion often leads to interstate conflict. The authors seek to discover whether rebellion is the only meaningful link between ethnic discrimination and international violence. Many scholars have argued that a domestic environment of inequality and violence results in a greater likelihood of state use of violence internationally. This argument is most fully developed within feminist literature; however, research in the area of ethno-political conflict has also highlighted the negative impact of domestic discrimination on state behavior at the international level. The analysis builds upon the literature linking domestic gender inequality and state aggression to other inequalities created and/or sustained by the state. Using the Minorities at Risk (MAR) and Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID) datasets, the authors test whether states characterized by higher levels of discrimination against ethnic minorities are more likely to exhibit higher levels of hostility or to use force first when involved in international disputes. Group-level data in MAR are used to create a set of state-level variables measuring the extent of formal and informal discrimination against minority groups. The authors then test whether states with higher levels of discrimination against minority groups are more likely to rely on force when involved in an international dispute, controlling for other possible causes of state use of force. Ultimately, the authors confirm their hypotheses that states characterized by domestic inequality with regard to ethnic minorities are more likely to exhibit higher levels of hostility and to use force first when involved in an interstate conflict.
"Electoral Politics as Domestic Ratification in International Negotiations: Insights from the Anglo-Irish Peace Process." (2001) Irish Studies in International Affairs 12(1):113-131.
Abstract: One of the striking aspects of the Anglo-Irish peace process during the 1980s and mid-1990s was the failure of British public opinion to affect the course of negotiations between the British and Irish governments and the subsequent agreements between them. In general, public opinion acts as a domestic constraint in international negotiations when the public enjoys either direct or indirect ratification power over an agreement. While direct ratification power derives from mechanisms such as referendums, indirect ratification power is typically exercised through the electoral process. An examination of the place of Northern Ireland and of Northern Ireland policy in the electoral process in Britain and Ireland finds that Northern Ireland policy is not an important determinant of voting choice for either public. At the same time British political parties have consistently refused to compete on the basis of Northern Ireland policy. By contrast, policy on the North has been an important point of differentiation and competition for Irish parties. The consequences of these findings for the British side of the peace process have been profound. In the absence of direct ratification power, the insignificance of Northern Ireland policy in British electoral politics robbed the public of the means to influence the course of the peace process.
"International Crisis Decisionmaking as a Two-Level Process." (2000) Co-Authored with Mark A. Boyer. Journal of Peace Research 37(6): 679-697
Abstract: The primary focus of this article is to break the ties to examining democracies to the exclusion of other regime types. Inspired by work in the two-level games approach to the larger question of foreign policy behavior, we broaden the two-level approach by examining the impact of domestic factors on decisionmaking across regime types and how they relate to the use and extent of violence in international crisis. Our analysis is bounded substantively and conceptually, however, by our exclusive focus in this article on decisionmaking in international crises. We use the 895 foreign policy crisis cases of the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) dataset for our analysis, which entails an examination of process and decisionmaking structural variables using cross-tabulations and a series of logistic regression models. We find that democracies exhibit many behaviors similar to non-democracies in crisis. The prevalent effects of action–reaction processes that result from the initial impact of the crisis–trigger suppress cross-regime type differences, at least in the initial stages of a crisis. Differences across regime types manifest themselves when looking at the entire crisis time period.
"Public Opinion as a Domestic Constraint in International Negotiations: Two-Level Games in the Anglo-Irish Peace Process." (1998). International Studies Quarterly 42(3):545-565
Abstract: This article aims to broaden the theoretical foundations of the two-level games approach to understanding international negotiations by considering the conditions under which public opinion can act as a domestic constraint on the ability of international negotiators to reach agreement. In determining the role that public opinion plays, three factors are of central importance: (1) the preferences of the public relative to those of decision makers and other domestic constituents; (2) the intensity of the issue under negotiation; and (3) the power of the public to ratify a potential agreement. Evidence from the last decade of Anglo-Irish negotiations over the future and status of Northern Ireland shows that public opinion acts as a constraint on negotiators when the public has the power to directly ratify an international agreement. When the public’s power to ratify an agreement is indirect, the intensity of the issue under negotiation will play a critical role in determining whether public preferences serve as a constraint on decision makers.