政党、澳大利亚和美国联盟:1976-2016

Q1 Social Sciences Asian Security Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1080/14799855.2019.1681403
Michael D. Cohen
{"title":"政党、澳大利亚和美国联盟:1976-2016","authors":"Michael D. Cohen","doi":"10.1080/14799855.2019.1681403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT What causes variation in the foreign policies of U.S. allies regarding their desired U.S. military role in their region and their troop commitments to U.S. military interventions? This paper addresses this question through documenting and explaining the sources of variation in Australia’s foreign policies regarding these issues over four decades. Treating the two major political parties in Australia and their respective leaders who self-select into them as endogenous, the paper argues that Australian foreign policy, whilst always supportive of the U.S. alliance, has systematically varied. This variation has correlated with the political party in power while the late Cold War and post-Cold War balances of power remained constant. While the Labor party has only been willing to send combat troops to large U.S. military interventions when the latter have a supporting United Nations Security Council Resolution, the conservative Liberal party has been willing to military intervene without this multilateral support. The Labor party, unlike the Liberal party, has also frequently proposed the formation and consolidation of multilateral regional institutions. These preferences render the U.S. to have been necessary for the Labor Party but sufficient for the Liberal party. Future Sino-U.S. armed conflict would provide a harder test of these hypotheses.","PeriodicalId":35162,"journal":{"name":"Asian Security","volume":"185 1","pages":"323 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political Parties, Australia and the U.S. Alliance: 1976-2016\",\"authors\":\"Michael D. Cohen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14799855.2019.1681403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT What causes variation in the foreign policies of U.S. allies regarding their desired U.S. military role in their region and their troop commitments to U.S. military interventions? This paper addresses this question through documenting and explaining the sources of variation in Australia’s foreign policies regarding these issues over four decades. Treating the two major political parties in Australia and their respective leaders who self-select into them as endogenous, the paper argues that Australian foreign policy, whilst always supportive of the U.S. alliance, has systematically varied. This variation has correlated with the political party in power while the late Cold War and post-Cold War balances of power remained constant. While the Labor party has only been willing to send combat troops to large U.S. military interventions when the latter have a supporting United Nations Security Council Resolution, the conservative Liberal party has been willing to military intervene without this multilateral support. The Labor party, unlike the Liberal party, has also frequently proposed the formation and consolidation of multilateral regional institutions. These preferences render the U.S. to have been necessary for the Labor Party but sufficient for the Liberal party. Future Sino-U.S. armed conflict would provide a harder test of these hypotheses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Security\",\"volume\":\"185 1\",\"pages\":\"323 - 342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2019.1681403\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2019.1681403","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

是什么原因导致美国的盟国在其期望的美国在其地区的军事作用和对美国军事干预的军队承诺方面的外交政策发生变化?本文通过记录和解释四十年来澳大利亚关于这些问题的外交政策变化的来源来解决这个问题。本文将澳大利亚的两个主要政党及其各自的领导人视为内生的,认为澳大利亚的外交政策虽然一直支持与美国的联盟,但却有系统的变化。这种变化与执政的政党有关,而冷战后期和冷战后的权力平衡保持不变。工党只愿意在美国大规模军事干预行动得到联合国安理会决议支持的情况下派遣作战部队,而保守的自由党则愿意在没有这种多边支持的情况下进行军事干预。与自由党不同,工党也经常提议建立和巩固多边地区机构。这些偏好使得美国对工党来说是必要的,但对自由党来说已经足够了。未来的中美。武装冲突将为这些假设提供更艰难的考验。
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
Political Parties, Australia and the U.S. Alliance: 1976-2016
ABSTRACT What causes variation in the foreign policies of U.S. allies regarding their desired U.S. military role in their region and their troop commitments to U.S. military interventions? This paper addresses this question through documenting and explaining the sources of variation in Australia’s foreign policies regarding these issues over four decades. Treating the two major political parties in Australia and their respective leaders who self-select into them as endogenous, the paper argues that Australian foreign policy, whilst always supportive of the U.S. alliance, has systematically varied. This variation has correlated with the political party in power while the late Cold War and post-Cold War balances of power remained constant. While the Labor party has only been willing to send combat troops to large U.S. military interventions when the latter have a supporting United Nations Security Council Resolution, the conservative Liberal party has been willing to military intervene without this multilateral support. The Labor party, unlike the Liberal party, has also frequently proposed the formation and consolidation of multilateral regional institutions. These preferences render the U.S. to have been necessary for the Labor Party but sufficient for the Liberal party. Future Sino-U.S. armed conflict would provide a harder test of these hypotheses.
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
Asian Security
Asian Security Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊最新文献
Redefining NATO’s Indo-Pacific partnerships: cooperative security meets collective defence and deterrence Political regimes and self-reliance in the Indian arms industry Sailing close to the wind: Japan’s forward deterrence posture toward the Taiwan Strait A neoclassical realist analysis of the evolving Philippines–India defense partnership in the twenty-first century The dragon in central Asia: Is China’s increased economic involvement resulting in security gains?
×
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