From producing consumer goods to managing clubs, banks, and other for-profit firms, many militaries generate revenues that are not part of the military budget and are far removed from the realm of military affairs, and have adverse consequences for societies. Despite their significance, causes and consequences of such activities are largely unexplored. This article investigates the impact of military economic activities on propensity for coups. It argues that as the military expands its role in the economy, it gains both the incentives and opportunities to stage coups. However, this effect varies by rank. Military-run enterprises function as a double-edged sword: while they provide rent-seeking opportunities that reduce the likelihood of rebellion among mid- and low-ranking officers, they also embolden senior officers, for whom economic control becomes a political stake. Leaders may use economic privileges to co-opt mid and lower ranking officers, but as military builds more economic capital, senior officers become less dependent on civilian leadership and more likely to stage coups. Using an original dataset of over 2,800 economic enterprises owned/run by militaries for all countries from 1950 to 2020, I show that coup risk significantly increases as military economic involvement increases, and such coups are primarily led by senior officers.
{"title":"From Bullets to Balance Sheets: How Military Involvement in the Economy Shapes Leader Survival","authors":"Roya Izadi","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf082","url":null,"abstract":"From producing consumer goods to managing clubs, banks, and other for-profit firms, many militaries generate revenues that are not part of the military budget and are far removed from the realm of military affairs, and have adverse consequences for societies. Despite their significance, causes and consequences of such activities are largely unexplored. This article investigates the impact of military economic activities on propensity for coups. It argues that as the military expands its role in the economy, it gains both the incentives and opportunities to stage coups. However, this effect varies by rank. Military-run enterprises function as a double-edged sword: while they provide rent-seeking opportunities that reduce the likelihood of rebellion among mid- and low-ranking officers, they also embolden senior officers, for whom economic control becomes a political stake. Leaders may use economic privileges to co-opt mid and lower ranking officers, but as military builds more economic capital, senior officers become less dependent on civilian leadership and more likely to stage coups. Using an original dataset of over 2,800 economic enterprises owned/run by militaries for all countries from 1950 to 2020, I show that coup risk significantly increases as military economic involvement increases, and such coups are primarily led by senior officers.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"147 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145532015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Building new energy infrastructure in emerging economies is a key pillar of global sustainable development, with the current project pipeline encompassing both foreign and domestic-led projects. But despite widespread need, energy projects are frequently criticized and opposed by citizens. Drawing on a conjoint experiment fielded in three major emerging economies, we examine the behavioral foundations of the political process underlying energy infrastructure development and siting. This paper asks: how does the identity of the developer affect public opinion regarding energy infrastructure projects? We find that respondents strongly prefer domestic to foreign developers and express lower political support for politicians who bring in foreign-developed projects. Using statistical analyses and qualitative interviews, we establish the importance of concerns including pollution, employment, and project quality. These findings have implications for understanding public opposition to energy infrastructure as well as the role of international investment in accelerating the global green energy transition.
{"title":"Home Field Advantage: How Developer Identity Shapes Public Opinion about Energy Projects in Major Emerging Economies","authors":"Meir Alkon, Jennifer Hadden","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf078","url":null,"abstract":"Building new energy infrastructure in emerging economies is a key pillar of global sustainable development, with the current project pipeline encompassing both foreign and domestic-led projects. But despite widespread need, energy projects are frequently criticized and opposed by citizens. Drawing on a conjoint experiment fielded in three major emerging economies, we examine the behavioral foundations of the political process underlying energy infrastructure development and siting. This paper asks: how does the identity of the developer affect public opinion regarding energy infrastructure projects? We find that respondents strongly prefer domestic to foreign developers and express lower political support for politicians who bring in foreign-developed projects. Using statistical analyses and qualitative interviews, we establish the importance of concerns including pollution, employment, and project quality. These findings have implications for understanding public opposition to energy infrastructure as well as the role of international investment in accelerating the global green energy transition.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"107 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145492406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite far-reaching changes in the United Nations’ (UN) counterterrorism architecture, there has been only limited attention to what this means for global and inter-institutional governance dynamics. In this paper, I assess the evolution of the UN’s inter-institutional counterterrorism architecture since the early 2000s through a focus on institutionalized gendered logics between the UN’s three pillars of work—security, development, and human rights. The analytical approach combines postmodern discourse theory and feminist institutionalism to analyze the often informal and unspoken shifts in and across institutional discourses and practices, which are obscured by more traditional approaches to inter-institutional relations. Analyzing nearly 500 documents by 32 entities of the UN Global Counterterrorism Coordination Compact through an innovative combination of discourse analysis with Natural Language Processing tools, I identify changes towards a proliferation and hybridization of institutional discourses and a balancing of logics across the three pillars of work. I argue that these changes indicate a move away from a functionally differentiated mode of governance towards a more dynamic and networked cross-sectoral form of “nexus governance,” which offers explanations for both inter-institutional integration as well as a subtle, networked form of securitization.
{"title":"From Differentiation to Nexus Governance—Dynamics of Change in the UN’s Inter-Institutional Governance of Terrorism and Violent Extremism","authors":"Ann-Kathrin Rothermel","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf081","url":null,"abstract":"Despite far-reaching changes in the United Nations’ (UN) counterterrorism architecture, there has been only limited attention to what this means for global and inter-institutional governance dynamics. In this paper, I assess the evolution of the UN’s inter-institutional counterterrorism architecture since the early 2000s through a focus on institutionalized gendered logics between the UN’s three pillars of work—security, development, and human rights. The analytical approach combines postmodern discourse theory and feminist institutionalism to analyze the often informal and unspoken shifts in and across institutional discourses and practices, which are obscured by more traditional approaches to inter-institutional relations. Analyzing nearly 500 documents by 32 entities of the UN Global Counterterrorism Coordination Compact through an innovative combination of discourse analysis with Natural Language Processing tools, I identify changes towards a proliferation and hybridization of institutional discourses and a balancing of logics across the three pillars of work. I argue that these changes indicate a move away from a functionally differentiated mode of governance towards a more dynamic and networked cross-sectoral form of “nexus governance,” which offers explanations for both inter-institutional integration as well as a subtle, networked form of securitization.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145485712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
s This study investigates whether court decisions that incorporate strong sentiments are less likely to be cited in subsequent cases than other decisions as a result of low generalizability, as conjectured by Busch and Pelc. The empirical analysis reveals that decisions made by the Appellate Body at the World Trade Organization, featuring both positive and negative language, tend to be cited frequently. This finding remains robust even after controlling for time effects, novelty of issues, judicial activities of reports, outcomes of judgments, and political characteristics of the disputes. This indicates the intriguing aspect of the World Trade Organization as an international court in which rhetorical methods help shape case law through frequent citations.
{"title":"Generalizable Precedents at the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization: An Empirical Examination of the Busch–Pelc Conjecture","authors":"Kazutaka Takechi","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf080","url":null,"abstract":"s This study investigates whether court decisions that incorporate strong sentiments are less likely to be cited in subsequent cases than other decisions as a result of low generalizability, as conjectured by Busch and Pelc. The empirical analysis reveals that decisions made by the Appellate Body at the World Trade Organization, featuring both positive and negative language, tend to be cited frequently. This finding remains robust even after controlling for time effects, novelty of issues, judicial activities of reports, outcomes of judgments, and political characteristics of the disputes. This indicates the intriguing aspect of the World Trade Organization as an international court in which rhetorical methods help shape case law through frequent citations.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145472926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Katharina P Coleman, Joshua Fawcett Weiner, Kseniya Oksamytna, Jessica Di Salvatore
Contemporary international organizations, including the UN, employ tens of thousands of staff outside of their headquarters in field offices around the world. Despite attempts to promote gender equity, significant differences persist in male and female officials’ experiences of working in UN field offices and missions. Drawing on a series of internal surveys of UN field staff, we demonstrate that, relative to men, women report having worse relationships with peers, supervisors, and management as well as having less confidence in performance appraisal mechanisms. Through a qualitative analysis of survey comments, archival materials, and semi-structured interviews, we highlight distinct gendered dynamics of working in field offices that affect international bureaucrats’ workplace experiences.
{"title":"Gender in International Bureaucracies: Evidence from UN Field Missions","authors":"Katharina P Coleman, Joshua Fawcett Weiner, Kseniya Oksamytna, Jessica Di Salvatore","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf076","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary international organizations, including the UN, employ tens of thousands of staff outside of their headquarters in field offices around the world. Despite attempts to promote gender equity, significant differences persist in male and female officials’ experiences of working in UN field offices and missions. Drawing on a series of internal surveys of UN field staff, we demonstrate that, relative to men, women report having worse relationships with peers, supervisors, and management as well as having less confidence in performance appraisal mechanisms. Through a qualitative analysis of survey comments, archival materials, and semi-structured interviews, we highlight distinct gendered dynamics of working in field offices that affect international bureaucrats’ workplace experiences.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145311076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Democracy is an important concept that is difficult to measure, and existing measures have well-known weaknesses. We define democracy narrowly, as electoral accountability, and estimate the probability of democracy using a structural model and data from 1945 to 2008. We allow for strategic voting and find evidence that voters are intimidated into supporting authoritarian leaders. Ratification of the Convention Against Torture by the country in question emboldens voters, while ratification by third parties, close relations with the USA and the incumbent’s military experience increase voter intimidation. Our estimated democracy scores are highly correlated with other measures frequently used in political science and come with important advantages, including conceptual clarity, replicability, out-of-sample score prediction, flexibility with respect to the variables and specifications used in the estimation model, estimates of uncertainty, and avoiding potential expert bias.
{"title":"Probabilistic Democracy","authors":"Muhammet A Bas, Randall W Stone","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf067","url":null,"abstract":"Democracy is an important concept that is difficult to measure, and existing measures have well-known weaknesses. We define democracy narrowly, as electoral accountability, and estimate the probability of democracy using a structural model and data from 1945 to 2008. We allow for strategic voting and find evidence that voters are intimidated into supporting authoritarian leaders. Ratification of the Convention Against Torture by the country in question emboldens voters, while ratification by third parties, close relations with the USA and the incumbent’s military experience increase voter intimidation. Our estimated democracy scores are highly correlated with other measures frequently used in political science and come with important advantages, including conceptual clarity, replicability, out-of-sample score prediction, flexibility with respect to the variables and specifications used in the estimation model, estimates of uncertainty, and avoiding potential expert bias.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145311030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This International Studies Association Presidential Address argues that international studies needs to rethink the field’s identity, and its value to students and society—an issue that is urgent due to the challenges facing higher education. International studies has long valued theory and theoretical paradigms over the careful evaluation of theory on the basis of evidence. The address argues that the incentive structure that encourages this focus on theory is misguided. It also argues that the field’s identity, value, and future do not depend on this focus on theory and theoretical paradigms. Instead, the field’s identity, value, and future depend on a willingness to center evidence-based, theory-informed scholarship. The address argues that the proposed redirection would alter the role of theory in the field, rather than make it obsolete. Evidence-based, theory-informed scholarship places theory in the service of an evidence-based understanding of phenomena in global politics and advances knowledge—offering value to students and society.
{"title":"Reconnecting Evidence and Theory: Building Knowledge from the Ground Up","authors":"Marijke Breuning","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf077","url":null,"abstract":"This International Studies Association Presidential Address argues that international studies needs to rethink the field’s identity, and its value to students and society—an issue that is urgent due to the challenges facing higher education. International studies has long valued theory and theoretical paradigms over the careful evaluation of theory on the basis of evidence. The address argues that the incentive structure that encourages this focus on theory is misguided. It also argues that the field’s identity, value, and future do not depend on this focus on theory and theoretical paradigms. Instead, the field’s identity, value, and future depend on a willingness to center evidence-based, theory-informed scholarship. The address argues that the proposed redirection would alter the role of theory in the field, rather than make it obsolete. Evidence-based, theory-informed scholarship places theory in the service of an evidence-based understanding of phenomena in global politics and advances knowledge—offering value to students and society.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145311031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
s This research note reconsiders the question of whether central bank independence (CBI) and fixed exchange rates (FIX) function as substitutes or complements. We argue that these monetary institutions have neither served as substitutes nor performed as complements for either inflation control or exchange rate stability. In terms of their substitutability, our statistical evidence shows that while CBI has been used for inflation control, FIX has been more directed toward exchange rate stability using updated datasets with these monetary institutions measured both on a de jure and de facto basis with nearly global country/year coverage from 1970 to 2020. In terms of their complementarity, our results also demonstrate that CBI was not more effective at reducing inflation when paired with greater FIX, and FIX was not more effective at promoting exchange rate stability when paired with greater CBI. If anything, both are less effective when paired with the other monetary institution.
{"title":"Reconsidering the Relationship between CBI and FIX","authors":"David H Bearce, Ana Carolina Garriga","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf074","url":null,"abstract":"s This research note reconsiders the question of whether central bank independence (CBI) and fixed exchange rates (FIX) function as substitutes or complements. We argue that these monetary institutions have neither served as substitutes nor performed as complements for either inflation control or exchange rate stability. In terms of their substitutability, our statistical evidence shows that while CBI has been used for inflation control, FIX has been more directed toward exchange rate stability using updated datasets with these monetary institutions measured both on a de jure and de facto basis with nearly global country/year coverage from 1970 to 2020. In terms of their complementarity, our results also demonstrate that CBI was not more effective at reducing inflation when paired with greater FIX, and FIX was not more effective at promoting exchange rate stability when paired with greater CBI. If anything, both are less effective when paired with the other monetary institution.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145241858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is widespread consensus in peace research that territorial conflicts are more enduring and difficult to settle than non-territorial conflicts. However, theoretical explanations for this relationship vary. We apply a new conceptual framework to integrate existing explanations into a broader theory. We highlight how earlier work suggests alternative mechanisms: either actors in territorial intra-state conflicts are less willing to compromise at the negotiation table, or the most relevant negotiation issues on the table in territorial conflicts are particularly difficult. This theoretical argument directly translates into a statistical model, enabling us to measure and compare the latent compromise propensity and the relative difficulty of negotiated provisions in territorial versus non-territorial conflicts. In a preregistered analysis, we find that comprehensive peace agreements are less likely in territorial civil wars because provisions primarily relevant in territorial conflicts are particularly difficult. Further analyses show that territorial conflicts also have a lower overall compromise propensity than government conflicts, but specific context characteristics in territorial conflicts explain this difference.
{"title":"Negotiating Difficult Issues with Little Fervour? Why Peace Processes in Territorial Conflicts Tend to Produce Incomplete Outcomes","authors":"Meri Dankenbring, Iris Volg, Constantin Ruhe","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf072","url":null,"abstract":"There is widespread consensus in peace research that territorial conflicts are more enduring and difficult to settle than non-territorial conflicts. However, theoretical explanations for this relationship vary. We apply a new conceptual framework to integrate existing explanations into a broader theory. We highlight how earlier work suggests alternative mechanisms: either actors in territorial intra-state conflicts are less willing to compromise at the negotiation table, or the most relevant negotiation issues on the table in territorial conflicts are particularly difficult. This theoretical argument directly translates into a statistical model, enabling us to measure and compare the latent compromise propensity and the relative difficulty of negotiated provisions in territorial versus non-territorial conflicts. In a preregistered analysis, we find that comprehensive peace agreements are less likely in territorial civil wars because provisions primarily relevant in territorial conflicts are particularly difficult. Further analyses show that territorial conflicts also have a lower overall compromise propensity than government conflicts, but specific context characteristics in territorial conflicts explain this difference.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145254696","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Human rights organizations regularly publicize abuses and shame repressive regimes. But can such human rights messaging effectively mobilize public support for sanctions against these regimes? This study examines whether and under what conditions international advocacy influences citizens’ willingness to support sanctions. I hypothesize that advocacy effectiveness depends on who delivers the message, what type of violation is reported, and how the response is framed. I fielded a preregistered survey experiment with a sample of 2,204 Americans, varying the type of rights violation (physical integrity vs. empowerment rights), the advocacy messenger (UN Special Rapporteur vs. Human Rights Watch), and the sanctions framing (unilateral vs. multilateral). Results show that advocacy messages can increase public support for sanctions, but effects vary significantly across conditions. First, UN messaging produces robust effects, while Human Rights Watch messaging shows weaker and less consistent impacts. Second, messages describing physical integrity abuses generate strong support, while empowerment rights violations fail to mobilize public opinion. Contrary to expectations, multilateral framing does not significantly increase support. These findings advance our understanding of transnational advocacy by identifying the conditions under which international actors can effectively mobilize public backing for human rights enforcement and when advocacy efforts may fall short.
{"title":"Can International Advocacy Rally Public Support for Human Rights Sanctions? Experimental Evidence from the United States","authors":"Ryan Yu-Lin Liou","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqaf075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqaf075","url":null,"abstract":"Human rights organizations regularly publicize abuses and shame repressive regimes. But can such human rights messaging effectively mobilize public support for sanctions against these regimes? This study examines whether and under what conditions international advocacy influences citizens’ willingness to support sanctions. I hypothesize that advocacy effectiveness depends on who delivers the message, what type of violation is reported, and how the response is framed. I fielded a preregistered survey experiment with a sample of 2,204 Americans, varying the type of rights violation (physical integrity vs. empowerment rights), the advocacy messenger (UN Special Rapporteur vs. Human Rights Watch), and the sanctions framing (unilateral vs. multilateral). Results show that advocacy messages can increase public support for sanctions, but effects vary significantly across conditions. First, UN messaging produces robust effects, while Human Rights Watch messaging shows weaker and less consistent impacts. Second, messages describing physical integrity abuses generate strong support, while empowerment rights violations fail to mobilize public opinion. Contrary to expectations, multilateral framing does not significantly increase support. These findings advance our understanding of transnational advocacy by identifying the conditions under which international actors can effectively mobilize public backing for human rights enforcement and when advocacy efforts may fall short.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145141503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"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：