Command of the skies: An air power dataset

We introduce a dataset on air power. Air power is the ability to inflict damage on an adversary through the air, and its successful application depends on achieving command of the skies. To achieve command of the skies, countries invest in a variety of types of military hardware and training, especially fighter aircraft. Our dataset contains information on the number, type and technological characteristics—including weaponry, avionics, speed, maneuverability and stealth characteristics—of each country’s fighter and attack aircraft for the period 1973–2013. We also introduce two new air power variables based on this data. The first is Country Air Power, a country-year measure of air power. The second is Expected Air Superiority, a dyad-year measure of which actor is likely to achieve air superiority in a military conflict. We illustrate the utility of this dataset by examining the relationship between air power and militarized dispute initiation, the duration and success of coercive bombing campaigns, and coercive behavior more generally. We find that command of the skies significantly affects conflict and coercive behavior.

Real Exchange Rate Overvaluation and WTO Dispute Initiation in Developing Countries

Why and when do developing countries file trade disputes at the World Trade Organization (WTO)? Although financial conditions have long been considered an important driver of trade policy, they have been largely absent from the literature on trade disputes. We argue that developing country governments bring more trade dispute to the WTO when overvalued real exchange rates put exporters at a competitive disadvantage. This dynamic is most prevalent in countries where large foreign currency debt burdens discourage nominal currency devaluations that would otherwise serve exporters’ interests. Our findings provide an explanation for differences in dispute participation rates among developing countries, and also suggest a new link between exchange rate regimes and trade policy.

Inter Arma Silent Leges? Democracy, Domestic Terrorism, and Diversion

This article develops expectations about the use of military force by democracies facing domestic terrorism. Due to the necessity of balancing effective counterterrorism with liberal acceptability, domestic terrorism typically represents a significant but nonexistential threat to democracies that is ineradicable via repression; as such, it is likely to generate appreciable diversionary incentives. Moreover, the use of force abroad, coupled with counterterrorist strategies that seek to safeguard democratic legitimacy, allows leaders to provide benefits both to citizens who seek retribution against terrorists and to those who value the preservation of liberty. Tests of the correlates of dispute initiation across all democracies, 1970–2000, provide support for this hypothesis. Further analyses reveal that diversion from domestic terrorism is most likely by democratic governments with relatively greater diversionary capacity and with lesser repressive capacity and incentive.

Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation

The main questions explored here are whether alliances lead to conflict between member states and non-member states and whether the capability of allies is a source of this effect. Building on the opportunity framework, this study argues that, with more confidence in military success due to support from allies, challenger states are more likely to be emboldened and to initiate disputes. The empirical analyses show that the capability of allies has an increasing effect on dispute initiation of member states against non-member states. This increasing effect becomes stronger as the level of common interests between the allies increases. The test results consistently suggest that alliances embolden member states to initiate disputes against non-member states, and also that alliances are more likely to aggravate, but not mute, dispute initiation against member states.

Revisiting Reputation: How Past Actions Matter in International Politics

Policy-makers and political scientists have long believed that states must make policy with an eye to maintaining a good reputation, especially a good reputation for resolve. Recent work, however, has argued that reputations for resolve do not form, and hence that past actions do not influence observers' behavior in subsequent interactions. This conclusion is theoretically problematic and unsupported by the evidence offered by reputation critics. In particular, juxtaposing reputation for resolve to power and interests is misleading when past actions influence observers' beliefs about interests, while the common approach of looking at crisis decision making misses the impact of reputation on general deterrence. We thus derive hypotheses about conflict onset from both the arguments of reputation critics and the logic of more standard reputation arguments, which we put to statistical test. We find that past action is closely connected to subsequent dispute initiation and that the effects of reputation generalize beyond the immediate circumstances of the past dispute. Although reputation is not all-important, leaders are well advised to consider the reputational implications of policy decisions in international conflict.