AP photo
"How Smart and Tough Are Democracies?"
New quantitative and qualitative evidence challenges the near-conventional argument that democracies are more likely than nondemocracies to win wars they start.
FEATURED PUBLICATIONS
Spring 2009
The Spring 2009 Issue of International Security Is Now Available
The Spring 2009 issue of the quarterly journal International Security is now available. It includes articles by Alexander Downes, Michael Mousseau, Phillip Saunders and Scott Kastner, Bruce Moon, Jeremy Pressman, and more.
NEW MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION PROCESS
In addition, as part of the journal's efforts to improve its editorial process, International Security has moved to Editorial Manager, an online manuscript managing system used by over 2,800 journals. You can access the new site at http://isec.edmgr.com.
Please register as an author and follow the instructions for submitting a manuscript. If you have any questions or encounter problems, please let us know by clicking "contact us" in the main navigation bar.
For more information, please read the Editor's Note in the spring issue.
AP Photo
Spring 2009
"How Smart and Tough Are Democracies? Reassessing Theories of Democratic Victory in War"
International Security, issue 4, volume 33
By Alexander B. Downes, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2007-2008
New evidence challenges the near-conventional argument that democracies are more likely than nondemocracies to win wars they start. A reanalysis of original data on war outcomes and an in-depth case study of the Johnson administration's decisions regarding Vietnam in 1965 demonstrate that democracies of all types are not significantly more likely to win wars. Furthermore, they are constrained by domestic politics and are often pressured into unwinnable wars.
Spring 2009
"The Social Market Roots of Democratic Peace"
International Security, issue 4, volume 33
By Michael Mousseau, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2005-2006
Democracy does not cause peace among nations. An analysis of conflicts from 1961 to 2001 shows that the absence of war between democratic countries depends on domestic economic factors-such as a contract-intensive economy-rather than on democracy. Because China and Russia lack this type of economy, an economic divide will define great power politics in the coming decade. Democratic leaders of nations with contract-intensive economies would do better to support global economic opportunity than to promote democracy abroad.
AP Photo
Spring 2009
"Bridge over Troubled Water? Envisioning a China-Taiwan Peace Agreement"
International Security, issue 4, volume 33
By Phillip C. Saunders and Scott L. Kastner
The new Taiwan president and senior leaders in China have indicated a willingness to reach a cross-strait agreement. Such an agreement could reduce the possibility of a military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. Although significant obstacles remain, if China negotiates a formal and generous agreement with Taiwan, a peace agreement—if reached—could endure.
Spring 2009
"Long Time Coming: Prospects for Democracy"
International Security, issue 4, volume 33
The odds of Iraq achieving democracy in the next twenty-five years are nearly zero, at best about two in thirty, but probably worse. Since the end of the nineteenth century, thirty nations have had long-lasting autocracies as extreme as Iraq's. Of those, only seven are now democratic. Their average transition time was fifty years, and only two managed it in twenty-five years. Their collective political experience indicates a similarly pessimistic future for Iraq and comparable nations. Furthermore, Iraq lacks the structural conditions necessary for a successful democratic transition. Thus the sober question of whether Iraq can democratize should deter policymakers from considering regime change in Iran or North Korea.
Spring 2009
"Power without Influence: The Bush Administration’s Foreign Policy Failure in the Middle East"
International Security, issue 4, volume 33
By Jeremy Pressman, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2002-2003
The George W. Bush administration's efforts in the Middle East failed to advance U.S. national security. The Bush administration did not defeat terrorism, promote democracy in the region, or stop nonconventional proliferation. It was unsuccessful because it relied too heavily on military force, showed an unwillingness to learn and adapt, and did not resolve long-standing policy contradictions. Given the Bush administration's failure in the Middle East, scholars should examine why material power does not automatically translate into international influence.
