International actors sometimes force targeted states to change their governments, a process known
as Foreign-Imposed Regime Change (FIRC). This foreign policy tool serves as a surprisingly active
locus for several theoretical debates in international relations and comparative politics. On the
international relations side, evaluation of FIRC as a policy tool has implications for the following
debates: whether foreign policy decisions are affected by individual leaders or are determined by
structural conditions; whether democracies are more peaceful in their relations with other states;
how belligerents choose their war aims; what factors make for successful military occupation; what
motivates states to go on ideological crusades; whether international actors can successfully
install democracy in postconflict settings; determinants of international trade; and others. On the
comparative politics side, FIRC speaks to what may be the two most important questions in all of
comparative politics: what factors help a state maintain internal order, and what factors help a
state make the transition to democracy?
FIRC also plays an absolutely central role in foreign policy debates, especially for the United
States. FIRC is arguably responsible for both the greatest success in the history of American
foreign policy, the post-1945 pacification of Germany and Japan, and one of the greatest disasters
in U.S. foreign policy history, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its catastrophic aftermath. Further,
FIRC has played a ubiquitous role in American foreign policy since America’s emergence as a great
power, as the United States has frequently used both overt and covert means to impose regime change
in other countries, especially in Latin America. FIRC has also been a tool used by other major
powers, especially the Soviet Union after 1945 in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Into the second
decade of the 21st century FIRC remains a controversial foreign policy tool, as some debate the
wisdom of pursuing FIRC in Libya in 2011, and others consider the possibility of pursuing FIRC in
countries such as Syria.
FIRC can be discussed as a theoretical phenomenon and as the subject of empirical research,
focusing on its nature, causes, and effects. The article contains five sections. The first section
discusses the definition and frequency of FIRC. The second section describes the causes of FIRC, why
actors sometimes seek to impose regime change on other states. The third section covers the
international consequences of FIRC, especially whether FIRC reduces conflict between states. The
fourth section addresses the domestic consequences of FIRC, especially whether FIRC is usually
followed by stability and/or democracy. The final section concludes.
Korean Nuclear Crises: Is There A Way Forward?
