Political regimes and international trade: The democratic difference revisited

American Political Science Review

Volumn 96, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 159-165

  Dai, Xinyuan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036012224     PISSN: 00030554     EISSN: 15375943     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S000305540200429X     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Alvarez, Jose E. 2001. "Do Liberal States Behave Better? A Critique of Slaughter's Liberal Theory." European Journal of International Law 12 (2): 183-247
2. Busch, Marc L. 2000. "Democracy, Consultation and the Paneling of Disputes under GATT." Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (August): 425-46
3. Gowa, Joanne. 1999. Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
4. Mansfield, Edward D., Helen V. Milner, and B. Peter Rosendorff. 2000. "Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade." American Political Science Review 94 (June): 305-21
5. Morrow, James D., Randolph M. Siverson, and Tressa E. Tabares. 1998. "The Political Determinants of International Trade: The Major Powers, 1907-1990." American Political Science Review 92 (September): 649-61
6. Putnam, Robert. 1988. "Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games." International Organization 42 (Summer): 427-60
7. Raustiala, Kal, and David G. Victor. 1998. "Conclusions." In The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments: Theory and Practice, ed. David G. Victor, Kal Raustiala and Eugene Skolnikoff. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 659-707
8. Reinhardt, Eric. 2000. "Aggressive Multilateralism: The Determinants of GATT/WTO Dispute Initiation, 1948-1998." Emory University. Typescript
9. Simmons, Beth. 2000. "International Law and State Behavior: Commitment and Compliance in International Monetary Affairs." American Political Science Review 94 (December): 819-35
10. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 1995. "International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda." European Journal of International Law 12 (2): 205-39