"训练世界":审视美国对外军事训练的逻辑

IF 2.4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Studies Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1093/isq/sqae044
Renanah Miles Joyce, Theodore McLauchlin, Lee Seymour
{"title":"\"训练世界\":审视美国对外军事训练的逻辑","authors":"Renanah Miles Joyce, Theodore McLauchlin, Lee Seymour","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"s Foreign military training has become a key component of the United States’ security policy. What explains the variation in US training allocation across countries and over time? Past work on security assistance, such as training, focuses on its effectiveness and consequences, largely overlooking questions about which countries receive it in the first place. To understand what drives US military training partnerships, we conducted a global statistical analysis of training from 1999 to 2018, structured around four logics: building relationships through defense diplomacy, deterrence against external, interstate threats, capacity-building in fragile states, and promoting democratic norms to advance democracy around the world. We find that the four logics receive support, with relationship-building and response to interstate and internal threats most consistently so. This analysis demonstrates the different ways the United States has used training in support of the US-led global order and raises questions about how to achieve accountability given these multiple logics. More broadly, the findings also have relevance for understanding how other states allocate training in conjunction with, in emulation of, or in opposition to the United States.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"163 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Train the World”: Examining the Logics of US Foreign Military Training\",\"authors\":\"Renanah Miles Joyce, Theodore McLauchlin, Lee Seymour\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/isq/sqae044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"s Foreign military training has become a key component of the United States’ security policy. What explains the variation in US training allocation across countries and over time? Past work on security assistance, such as training, focuses on its effectiveness and consequences, largely overlooking questions about which countries receive it in the first place. To understand what drives US military training partnerships, we conducted a global statistical analysis of training from 1999 to 2018, structured around four logics: building relationships through defense diplomacy, deterrence against external, interstate threats, capacity-building in fragile states, and promoting democratic norms to advance democracy around the world. We find that the four logics receive support, with relationship-building and response to interstate and internal threats most consistently so. This analysis demonstrates the different ways the United States has used training in support of the US-led global order and raises questions about how to achieve accountability given these multiple logics. More broadly, the findings also have relevance for understanding how other states allocate training in conjunction with, in emulation of, or in opposition to the United States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Studies Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"163 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Studies Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae044\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae044","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对外军事训练已成为美国安全政策的重要组成部分。美国在不同国家和不同时期的培训分配有何不同?以往有关培训等安全援助的研究主要集中在其效果和后果上,在很大程度上忽略了哪些国家首先接受培训的问题。为了了解是什么推动了美国的军事培训伙伴关系,我们对 1999 年至 2018 年期间的培训进行了全球统计分析,分析围绕四个逻辑展开:通过防务外交建立关系,对外部国家间威胁进行威慑,脆弱国家的能力建设,以及促进民主规范以推动世界各地的民主。我们发现,这四个逻辑都得到了支持,其中关系建设和应对国家间和内部威胁得到的支持最为一致。这一分析展示了美国利用培训支持美国领导的全球秩序的不同方式,并提出了在这些多重逻辑下如何实现问责的问题。从更广泛的意义上讲,这些发现也有助于理解其他国家如何与美国合作、效仿或反对美国来分配培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“Train the World”: Examining the Logics of US Foreign Military Training
s Foreign military training has become a key component of the United States’ security policy. What explains the variation in US training allocation across countries and over time? Past work on security assistance, such as training, focuses on its effectiveness and consequences, largely overlooking questions about which countries receive it in the first place. To understand what drives US military training partnerships, we conducted a global statistical analysis of training from 1999 to 2018, structured around four logics: building relationships through defense diplomacy, deterrence against external, interstate threats, capacity-building in fragile states, and promoting democratic norms to advance democracy around the world. We find that the four logics receive support, with relationship-building and response to interstate and internal threats most consistently so. This analysis demonstrates the different ways the United States has used training in support of the US-led global order and raises questions about how to achieve accountability given these multiple logics. More broadly, the findings also have relevance for understanding how other states allocate training in conjunction with, in emulation of, or in opposition to the United States.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: International Studies Quarterly, the official journal of the International Studies Association, seeks to acquaint a broad audience of readers with the best work being done in the variety of intellectual traditions included under the rubric of international studies. Therefore, the editors welcome all submissions addressing this community"s theoretical, empirical, and normative concerns. First preference will continue to be given to articles that address and contribute to important disciplinary and interdisciplinary questions and controversies.
期刊最新文献
Inference with Extremes: Accounting for Extreme Values in Count Regression Models Contesting the Securitization of Migration: NGOs, IGOs, and the Security Backlash Dealing with Clashes of International Law: A Microlevel Study of Climate and Trade Nationalism, Internationalism, and Interventionism: How Overseas Military Service Influences Foreign Policy Attitudes Preferential Trade Agreements and Leaders’ Business Experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1