Search

You searched for: Publication Year within 5 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 5 Years Publication Year within 1 Year Remove constraint Publication Year: within 1 Year Publication Year within 10 Years Remove constraint Publication Year: within 10 Years Journal Political Science Quarterly Remove constraint Journal: Political Science Quarterly Topic Foreign Policy Remove constraint Topic: Foreign Policy
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Robert Jervis
  • Publication Date: 07-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Political Science Quarterly
  • Institution: Academy of Political Science
  • Abstract: Robert Jervis speculates about the likely foreign policy that a Democratic administration will follow if its candidate wins in November. He argues that President Donald Trump will have left a difficult legacy and his successor will have to simultaneously rebuild trust and instructions while also utilizing the leverage that Trump has generated.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Elections, Political Science, Donald Trump
  • Political Geography: North America, United States of America
  • Author: David Crow, James Ron
  • Publication Date: 03-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Political Science Quarterly
  • Institution: Academy of Political Science
  • Abstract: David Crow and James Ron look at how global publics view the relationship between human rights organizations and the U.S. government. They argue that ordinary people across various world regions do not perceive human rights groups as “handmaidens” of U.S. foreign policy.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Government, Human Rights, Non-Governmental Organization, Public Opinion
  • Political Geography: Global Focus, United States of America
  • Author: Alexander B. Downes
  • Publication Date: 03-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Political Science Quarterly
  • Institution: Academy of Political Science
  • Abstract: The rapid-fire overthrow of the theocratic Taliban regime in Afghanistan (2001) and Saddam Hussein’s Baathist dictatorship in Iraq (2003) by the United States—and the disastrous aftermaths of those and other recent interventions (such as the ouster of Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011)— has sparked popular and scholarly interest in the causes and consequences of foreign-imposed regime change (FIRC). One of the enduring puzzles about FIRCs is that, as highlighted in Melissa Willard-Foster’s terrific book Toppling Foreign Governments, three-quarters of them are carried out by great powers against minor powers in situations of extreme power asymmetry. “Though this asymmetry of power makes an imposed change feasible,” writes Willard-Foster, a political scientist at the University of Vermont, “it should also make that change unnecessary” because “militarily weak leaders who are bereft of allies should back down when confronted by stronger states” (pp. 2–3). The 133 regime changes in Willard-Foster’s study, however, testify that the weak regularly defy the strong—and pay the price for it.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Government, Regime Change, Political Science
  • Political Geography: Afghanistan, Iraq, United States of America
  • Author: Avery Plaw
  • Publication Date: 01-2020
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Political Science Quarterly
  • Institution: Academy of Political Science
  • Abstract: The reasons why armed drones have been embraced by recent American presidents are obvious. They offer pilot invulnerability, protecting military personnel from harm in the conduct of operations and protecting political leaders from the criticism that follows it. They are also exceptionally well designed for selectivity—that is, for distinguishing legitimate targets from innocent civilians and precisely targeting the former without harming the latter. What may be less obvious is why they have proved anathema to so many critics who are genuinely concerned to make sure that American armed force is used ethically and legally, harming only legitimate targets. After all, both enhanced selectivity and pilot invulnerability reduce unintended harms. Yet many drone critics argue that these weapons pose an exceptional threat precisely because of pilot invulnerability and in some cases target selectivity. Their argument goes like this: democratic leaders and publics are casualty averse, and the fear of public backlash often deters leaders from going to war, but drones remove the danger of military casualties (and potentially diminish collateral civilian casualties) and hence remove the chief sources of public opposition and hence the main deterrents to using force (pp. 32–33). The consequence is that democracies will more frequently resort to force. This will lead to more armed conflict, more harm and a worse world.
  • Topic: Foreign Policy, Drones, Book Review, Political Science
  • Political Geography: North America, United States of America