The Power of Democratic Cooperation

International Security

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 142-153

  Choi, Ajin ^a  

^a Yonsei University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141704077     PISSN: 01622889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/016228803322428009     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Michael C. Desch, "Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters," International Security, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Fall 2002), pp. 5-47. Additional cites to this article appear parenthetically in the text.
2. Studies exploring the democratic victory thesis include David A. Lake, "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, No. 1 (March 1992), pp. 24-37; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory," American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 2 (June 1998), pp. 377-389; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, Democracies at War (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002); Christopher F. Gelpi and Michael Griesdorf, "Winner or Loser? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918-1998," American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3 (September 2001), pp. 633-648; and Ajin Choi, "Cooperation for Victory: Democracy, International Partnerships, and State War Performance, 1816-1992," Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 2001.
3. Studies exploring the democratic victory thesis include David A. Lake, "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, No. 1 (March 1992), pp. 24-37; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory," American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 2 (June 1998), pp. 377-389; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, Democracies at War (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002); Christopher F. Gelpi and Michael Griesdorf, "Winner or Loser? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918-1998," American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3 (September 2001), pp. 633-648; and Ajin Choi, "Cooperation for Victory: Democracy, International Partnerships, and State War Performance, 1816-1992," Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 2001.
4. Studies exploring the democratic victory thesis include David A. Lake, "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, No. 1 (March 1992), pp. 24-37; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory," American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 2 (June 1998), pp. 377-389; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, Democracies at War (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002); Christopher F. Gelpi and Michael Griesdorf, "Winner or Loser? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918-1998," American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3 (September 2001), pp. 633-648; and Ajin Choi, "Cooperation for Victory: Democracy, International Partnerships, and State War Performance, 1816-1992," Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 2001.
5. Studies exploring the democratic victory thesis include David A. Lake, "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, No. 1 (March 1992), pp. 24-37; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory," American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 2 (June 1998), pp. 377-389; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, Democracies at War (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002); Christopher F. Gelpi and Michael Griesdorf, "Winner or Loser? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918-1998," American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3 (September 2001), pp. 633-648; and Ajin Choi, "Cooperation for Victory: Democracy, International Partnerships, and State War Performance, 1816-1992," Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 2001.
6. Studies exploring the democratic victory thesis include David A. Lake, "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, No. 1 (March 1992), pp. 24-37; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory," American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 2 (June 1998), pp. 377-389; Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, Democracies at War (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002); Christopher F. Gelpi and Michael Griesdorf, "Winner or Loser? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918-1998," American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3 (September 2001), pp. 633-648; and Ajin Choi, "Cooperation for Victory: Democracy, International Partnerships, and State War Performance, 1816-1992," Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 2001.
7. James D. Fearon, "Domestic Political Audiences and Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 3 (September 1994), pp. 577-592.
8. In response to Desch's claims about Israel, I suggest that democratic states do not necessarily go to war either alone or with allies to save other democracies. Instead, they go to war to defend their values or national interests. The important point is that, once fully committed to fight, democratic states are better able to work with their allies when waging war. In this sense, U.S. behavior toward Israel that is motivated by American strategic interests does not contradict the triumphalists' expectation of democratic victory.
9. George Tsebelis, "Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies," American Political Science Review, Vol. 93, No. 3 (September 1999), p. 593.
10. Kurt Gaubatz, "Democratic States and Commitment in International Relations," International Organization, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Winter 1996), pp. 109-139.
11. Mancur Olson, "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development," American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3 (September 1993), p. 571.
12. Robert O. Keohane, "The Demand of International Regimes," Stephen D. Krasner, ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 162-163.
13. These statistical findings were first generated in 2002 in Ajin Choi, "Democratic Synergy and Victory in War, 1816-1992," War Performance Model 2, Table 1, n. 15.
14. Reiter and Stam, "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory," p. 385.
15. John Mueller, "The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World," International Security, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 60-61.
16. Hubert Van Tuyll, Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945 (New York: Greenwood, 1989), p. 182.
17. Richard Overy et al., "Co-operation: Trade, Aid, and Technology," in David Reynolds, Warren F. Kimball, and A.O. Chubarian, eds., Allies at War (New York: St Martin's, 1994), pp. 209-211.
18. Additional statistical evidence supports this finding about the number of democratic partners: First, controlling for other factors such as war duration, expected war outcome, and leadership change, democratic states are less likely than nondemocratic states to abandon their partners during war. Second, controlling for other factors such as threat, coalition size, and hegemony, democracies are better able than their nondemocratic counterparts to coordinate their war efforts and related resources. See Choi, "Cooperation for Victory."
19. War Cabinet minutes, May 9, 1917, CAB23/13, in David Woodward, "David Lloyd George: A Negotiated Peace with Germany and the Kuhlmann Peace Kite of September 1917," Canadian Journal of History, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1971), p. 80.
20. David Lloyd George, War Memoirs of David Lloyd George, Vol. 4 (London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1934), pp. 2093-2097.
21. Woodward, "David Lloyd George," pp. 79, 88-89.
22. John Turner, British Politics and Great War: Coalition and Conflict, 1915-1918 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 194-226; and David French, The Strategy of the Lloyd George Coalition, 1916-1918 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), pp. 13-17.
23. John Turner, British Politics and Great War: Coalition and Conflict, 1915-1918 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 194-226; and David French, The Strategy of the Lloyd George Coalition, 1916-1918 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), pp. 13-17.
24. Gary W. Shanafelt, The Secret Enemy: Austria-Hungary and the German Alliance, 1914-1918 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 104-115.
25. Ibid., pp. 112-116, 137-148.
26. Adam B. Ulam, Expansion and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917-1973 (New York: Praeger, 1974), p. 319.
27. "Note on Moscow Conference, November 27, 1942," in Richard Lukas, Eagles East: The Army Air Force and the Soviet Union, 1941-1945 (Tallahassee: Florida State University Press, 1970), p. 163; and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, Stalin's Correspondence with Churchill, Attlee, Roosevelt, and Truman, 1941-1945, Vol. 2 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1958), p. 45.
28. "Note on Moscow Conference, November 27, 1942," in Richard Lukas, Eagles East: The Army Air Force and the Soviet Union, 1941-1945 (Tallahassee: Florida State University Press, 1970), p. 163; and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, Stalin's Correspondence with Churchill, Attlee, Roosevelt, and Truman, 1941-1945, Vol. 2 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1958), p. 45.
29. David Reynolds, Rich Relations: The American Occupation of Britain, 1942-1945 (London: HarperCollins, 1995), pp. 89-126.
30. For the development of this operation, see Wesley Craven and James Cate, eds., The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vols. 1-2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949, 1951); and Maurice Matloff and Edwin Snell, Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare, 1943-1944 (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 1959).
31. For the development of this operation, see Wesley Craven and James Cate, eds., The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vols. 1-2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949, 1951); and Maurice Matloff and Edwin Snell, Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare, 1943-1944 (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 1959).
32. See Christopher F. Gelpi and Joseph M. Grieco, "Attracting Trouble: Democracy, Leadership Tenure, and Targeting of Military Challenges, 1918-1998," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 45, No. 6 (December 2001), pp. 794-815.