Abstract This article introduces the Lobbying EU Sanctions dataset. Sanctions have become a decisive tool in international relations, including in the European Union’s (EU) foreign affairs. Business actors are heavily affected by sanctions, especially economic and financial ones. Yet, scholarship and the public know little about how business actors interact with decision-makers in the context of sanctions. The Lobbying EU Sanctions dataset addresses this problem. The dataset builds on an original survey (2020) with European business groups and contains data on their interactions with decision-makers regarding EU restrictive measures. The article discusses the need for fine-grained data on interaction between business groups and decision-makers in the area of sanctions, describes the survey design and structure of the data, presents some initial survey findings, and illustrates how the Lobbying EU Sanctions dataset opens new opportunities for research on sanctions.
{"title":"Lobbying Sanctions: Data from the European Union","authors":"Katharina Meissner","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad029","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article introduces the Lobbying EU Sanctions dataset. Sanctions have become a decisive tool in international relations, including in the European Union’s (EU) foreign affairs. Business actors are heavily affected by sanctions, especially economic and financial ones. Yet, scholarship and the public know little about how business actors interact with decision-makers in the context of sanctions. The Lobbying EU Sanctions dataset addresses this problem. The dataset builds on an original survey (2020) with European business groups and contains data on their interactions with decision-makers regarding EU restrictive measures. The article discusses the need for fine-grained data on interaction between business groups and decision-makers in the area of sanctions, describes the survey design and structure of the data, presents some initial survey findings, and illustrates how the Lobbying EU Sanctions dataset opens new opportunities for research on sanctions.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135874675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Even as the protection of civilians becomes a widely held norm, there is substantial variation in public support for humanitarian policy efforts. We use a survey experiment in Sweden to gain insights into this puzzle. Our survey confirms that citizens generally support military, but particularly non-military, means of civilian protection. Yet, we also find that support is partly particularized. Specifying that civilians may have ties to extremist groups (as victims or supporters) reduces support for proposals to provide humanitarian aid, contribute to UN observer missions and accept refugees. We trace this reduced support to lower moral obligation and higher threat perceptions. In contrast to expectations, respondents do not prioritize the protection of co-nationals, or women and children. Manipulation checks suggest the explanation that perceptions of who constitutes a civilian are subjective. Our findings provide insights into the domestic political determinants of atrocity prevention abroad.
{"title":"Particularized Preferences for Civilian Protection? A Survey Experiment","authors":"Sophia Hatz, Lisa Hultman","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad031","url":null,"abstract":"Even as the protection of civilians becomes a widely held norm, there is substantial variation in public support for humanitarian policy efforts. We use a survey experiment in Sweden to gain insights into this puzzle. Our survey confirms that citizens generally support military, but particularly non-military, means of civilian protection. Yet, we also find that support is partly particularized. Specifying that civilians may have ties to extremist groups (as victims or supporters) reduces support for proposals to provide humanitarian aid, contribute to UN observer missions and accept refugees. We trace this reduced support to lower moral obligation and higher threat perceptions. In contrast to expectations, respondents do not prioritize the protection of co-nationals, or women and children. Manipulation checks suggest the explanation that perceptions of who constitutes a civilian are subjective. Our findings provide insights into the domestic political determinants of atrocity prevention abroad.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139289717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After the Cold War, election monitoring activities increased significantly, and research on the topic has risen sharply in the last ten years. These are valuable contributions, but we believe one point requires further consideration: empirically clarifying how monitoring has changed over time. This is because fraudsters have begun to shift election manipulation from the day of the election to other times in order to adapt to election monitoring. If fraudsters have evolved over time, have monitors kept pace with this evolution? Employing an original dataset of election monitoring reports published by major monitoring organizations, this study performs large-scale text analysis of these reports to show that the criteria used by monitoring teams have indeed changed over time. Specifically, although election monitoring groups have been criticized for their bias in emphasizing manipulation on election day more than other factors, we demonstrate that such bias has declined over time.
{"title":"The Evolution of Monitoring: Evidence from Text Analysis of Election Monitoring Reports","authors":"Taku Yukawa, Takuto Sakamoto","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad034","url":null,"abstract":"After the Cold War, election monitoring activities increased significantly, and research on the topic has risen sharply in the last ten years. These are valuable contributions, but we believe one point requires further consideration: empirically clarifying how monitoring has changed over time. This is because fraudsters have begun to shift election manipulation from the day of the election to other times in order to adapt to election monitoring. If fraudsters have evolved over time, have monitors kept pace with this evolution? Employing an original dataset of election monitoring reports published by major monitoring organizations, this study performs large-scale text analysis of these reports to show that the criteria used by monitoring teams have indeed changed over time. Specifically, although election monitoring groups have been criticized for their bias in emphasizing manipulation on election day more than other factors, we demonstrate that such bias has declined over time.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"2676 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139289770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study applies the appraisal theory of emotions to explore how they influence leaders’ responses in the context of long-standing rivalries between states. It argues that policymakers’ emotions toward a rival country can help elucidate periods of higher and lower tensions in their bilateral relationship. Focusing on the Bolivian–Chilean rivalry, this study examines the case of Bolivia’s former president Evo Morales to shed light on the noticeable change in foreign policy toward Chile during two of his presidential terms. The findings reveal that Morales’s emotions were distinctly different during the period of cooperation or de-escalation compared to the period of escalation of tensions. The period of cooperation is characterized by strategies that promote contact, aligning with motive-consistent appraisals of events. Conversely, the period of escalation is marked by strategies that favor distance, stemming from motive-inconsistent appraisals.
{"title":"The Role of Political Leaders’ Emotions in Shaping International Rivalries: The Case of Former Bolivian President Evo Morales","authors":"Consuelo Thiers","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad033","url":null,"abstract":"This study applies the appraisal theory of emotions to explore how they influence leaders’ responses in the context of long-standing rivalries between states. It argues that policymakers’ emotions toward a rival country can help elucidate periods of higher and lower tensions in their bilateral relationship. Focusing on the Bolivian–Chilean rivalry, this study examines the case of Bolivia’s former president Evo Morales to shed light on the noticeable change in foreign policy toward Chile during two of his presidential terms. The findings reveal that Morales’s emotions were distinctly different during the period of cooperation or de-escalation compared to the period of escalation of tensions. The period of cooperation is characterized by strategies that promote contact, aligning with motive-consistent appraisals of events. Conversely, the period of escalation is marked by strategies that favor distance, stemming from motive-inconsistent appraisals.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139289623","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract While studies have investigated why states contribute personnel to peacekeeping operations, little consideration has been given to how domestic political factors influence state contributions. We argue that changes in executive power that involve a shift in the domestic source of leadership support cause fluctuations in troop deployments, leading to inconsistent contribution behavior. However, we argue that this effect is attenuated in more democratic states since greater overlaps in the preferences of domestic groups are present and political institutions exist to constrain major policy shifts. Analysis of state troop commitments to UN peacekeeping from 1991 to 2018 supports this argument. This research highlights the often overlooked role of domestic policy processes in peacekeeping contributions while moving beyond considering why some states contribute relatively more personnel to address variation within countries. The findings indicate that while democracies typically contribute fewer peacekeepers, they tend to be more consistent contributors in the face of leadership turnover.
{"title":"Reliable Contributors? Leadership Turnover, Regime Type, and Commitments to Peacekeeping","authors":"Jared Oestman, Timothy J A Passmore","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad030","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While studies have investigated why states contribute personnel to peacekeeping operations, little consideration has been given to how domestic political factors influence state contributions. We argue that changes in executive power that involve a shift in the domestic source of leadership support cause fluctuations in troop deployments, leading to inconsistent contribution behavior. However, we argue that this effect is attenuated in more democratic states since greater overlaps in the preferences of domestic groups are present and political institutions exist to constrain major policy shifts. Analysis of state troop commitments to UN peacekeeping from 1991 to 2018 supports this argument. This research highlights the often overlooked role of domestic policy processes in peacekeeping contributions while moving beyond considering why some states contribute relatively more personnel to address variation within countries. The findings indicate that while democracies typically contribute fewer peacekeepers, they tend to be more consistent contributors in the face of leadership turnover.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"22 7","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135875096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
International relations scholarship has long overlooked the role of parliament in shaping states’ decision to go to war. In contrast, recent studies explored variations in parliamentary war powers across time and countries and their impact on troop deployments abroad. However, a systematic analysis of the determinants of support for military interventions in parliament is still missing. This article fills this literature gap by examining votes on 119 missions in twenty-one democracies between 1990 and 2019. Our findings suggest that parliamentary contestation is fundamentally driven by government ideology and the type of mission. Parliamentary support for military intervention is significantly higher when a left-wing government is in power. Moreover, “inclusive” missions with a robust humanitarian dimension draw a considerably lower level of contestation than “strategic” missions aimed at contrasting a security threat. Through such findings, the article contributes to the debates on the relevance of domestic political institutions in foreign policy and the party politics of military interventions.
{"title":"Peace at Home, Conflict Abroad: Government Ideology, Mission Type, and Parliamentary Support for Military Interventions","authors":"V. Vignoli, Francesco Baraldi","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad032","url":null,"abstract":"International relations scholarship has long overlooked the role of parliament in shaping states’ decision to go to war. In contrast, recent studies explored variations in parliamentary war powers across time and countries and their impact on troop deployments abroad. However, a systematic analysis of the determinants of support for military interventions in parliament is still missing. This article fills this literature gap by examining votes on 119 missions in twenty-one democracies between 1990 and 2019. Our findings suggest that parliamentary contestation is fundamentally driven by government ideology and the type of mission. Parliamentary support for military intervention is significantly higher when a left-wing government is in power. Moreover, “inclusive” missions with a robust humanitarian dimension draw a considerably lower level of contestation than “strategic” missions aimed at contrasting a security threat. Through such findings, the article contributes to the debates on the relevance of domestic political institutions in foreign policy and the party politics of military interventions.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"183 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139290003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The way an international actor acts in one context impacts its ability to play a role in other contexts. Expanding on role theoretical insights, I develop a concept of role spillover to account for the ways in which roles interact across contexts. Acting in accordance with expectations in one context might not benefit an actor in another context; it can either support or impede an actor’s ability to play its preferred role elsewhere. I demonstrate this through a case study of the European Union (EU)’s bid for observer status at the Arctic Council, which has been left in limbo despite observing the Council’s work de facto for over 15 years. The EU’s issues with achieving permanent observer status can be explained by spillover from the EU’s role in animal welfare debates and its role as a strategic competitor to Russia. In both cases, the EU’s ability to take on its preferred role in the Arctic was hindered by role play elsewhere.
{"title":"Role Spillover: Roles’ Impacts across Contexts and the EU’s Struggle for Arctic Council Observer Status","authors":"Aslak Veierud Busch","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The way an international actor acts in one context impacts its ability to play a role in other contexts. Expanding on role theoretical insights, I develop a concept of role spillover to account for the ways in which roles interact across contexts. Acting in accordance with expectations in one context might not benefit an actor in another context; it can either support or impede an actor’s ability to play its preferred role elsewhere. I demonstrate this through a case study of the European Union (EU)’s bid for observer status at the Arctic Council, which has been left in limbo despite observing the Council’s work de facto for over 15 years. The EU’s issues with achieving permanent observer status can be explained by spillover from the EU’s role in animal welfare debates and its role as a strategic competitor to Russia. In both cases, the EU’s ability to take on its preferred role in the Arctic was hindered by role play elsewhere.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43418518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article introduces the concept of political myth to foreign policy analysis. It explains how myth can influence the construction of foreign policy events and decisions and creates a new lens that analysts can use to study this. To do that, this article draws upon conceptual literature on political myth to explain what myth is and how it shapes discursive constructions of the world. Adopting an interpretivist approach, it then uses the concept as a lens to analyze the impact that the Blair Poodle myth has had on the construction of the US–UK “special relationship” from 2002 to 2022 and considers how this has influenced the diplomatic behavior of five UK prime ministers. It finds that the myth has been integral to negative constructions of the “special relationship” over the past twenty years and has inspired political action, including protests, resignations, and more formal diplomatic engagement with the United States.
{"title":"Introducing Myth to Foreign Policy Analysis: The Blair Poodle Myth and Its Impact on Constructions of the “Special Relationship”","authors":"Thomas Eason","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article introduces the concept of political myth to foreign policy analysis. It explains how myth can influence the construction of foreign policy events and decisions and creates a new lens that analysts can use to study this. To do that, this article draws upon conceptual literature on political myth to explain what myth is and how it shapes discursive constructions of the world. Adopting an interpretivist approach, it then uses the concept as a lens to analyze the impact that the Blair Poodle myth has had on the construction of the US–UK “special relationship” from 2002 to 2022 and considers how this has influenced the diplomatic behavior of five UK prime ministers. It finds that the myth has been integral to negative constructions of the “special relationship” over the past twenty years and has inspired political action, including protests, resignations, and more formal diplomatic engagement with the United States.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47013718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The laws of war prohibit intentional attacks on civilians, a fact that reflects the widely held view that intentional killings are particularly egregious, far more so than incidental killings or pure accidents. Yet, recent scholarship in moral psychology shows that the relationship between intention-understanding and moral judgments can also go the other way, that is, that judgments about whether an action is right or wrong can influence the degree to which people regard the action as intentional or unintentional. Drawing on this line of research, in this article we examine how moral intuitions influence perceptions of the intent to harm civilians in war. Using vignette-based survey experiments, we look at whether complying with the international humanitarian law principles of proportionality and precaution in attacks affects intentionality attributions. Our results suggest that when soldiers are perceived as having broken these principles, people are more likely to conclude that they killed civilians intentionally.
{"title":"Malicious Motives or Innocent Intentions? How Moral Reactions to “Collateral Damage” Shape Perceptions of Intent in Wartime Conduct","authors":"David Traven, Marcus Holmes, Jonathan A. Chu","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The laws of war prohibit intentional attacks on civilians, a fact that reflects the widely held view that intentional killings are particularly egregious, far more so than incidental killings or pure accidents. Yet, recent scholarship in moral psychology shows that the relationship between intention-understanding and moral judgments can also go the other way, that is, that judgments about whether an action is right or wrong can influence the degree to which people regard the action as intentional or unintentional. Drawing on this line of research, in this article we examine how moral intuitions influence perceptions of the intent to harm civilians in war. Using vignette-based survey experiments, we look at whether complying with the international humanitarian law principles of proportionality and precaution in attacks affects intentionality attributions. Our results suggest that when soldiers are perceived as having broken these principles, people are more likely to conclude that they killed civilians intentionally.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41406372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research on status in international relations has expanded in the last few decades. The key empirical studies suggest that status concern generates an incentive for initiating international conflicts since unilateral military engagement is believed to increase the status of a country. We concur with this argument. However, a further study should be conducted to find whether “multilateral” military engagement can change status perceptions and therefore be related to international politics over status. The test is important since the multilateral use of force is distinct from the unilateral use of force in its theoretical background and its connotation in world politics. In our experiment conducted in Japan, we treat the information on the multilateral use of force, and examine whether variations of the treatment information change people’s self-perception over their country’s international status. The results show that participation in a multilateral use of force increases and an early departure from the multilateral mission out of casualty concerns decreases their country’s self-status perception. Also, we successfully identify that the people who have a high social dominance orientation trait are more susceptible to such information.
{"title":"Micro-foundations of the Quest for Status: Testing Self-Status Perception and the Multilateral Use of Force","authors":"Yuji Masumura, Atsushi Tago","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad027","url":null,"abstract":"Research on status in international relations has expanded in the last few decades. The key empirical studies suggest that status concern generates an incentive for initiating international conflicts since unilateral military engagement is believed to increase the status of a country. We concur with this argument. However, a further study should be conducted to find whether “multilateral” military engagement can change status perceptions and therefore be related to international politics over status. The test is important since the multilateral use of force is distinct from the unilateral use of force in its theoretical background and its connotation in world politics. In our experiment conducted in Japan, we treat the information on the multilateral use of force, and examine whether variations of the treatment information change people’s self-perception over their country’s international status. The results show that participation in a multilateral use of force increases and an early departure from the multilateral mission out of casualty concerns decreases their country’s self-status perception. Also, we successfully identify that the people who have a high social dominance orientation trait are more susceptible to such information.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139355853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：