Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In a path-breaking article, Huntley (1996) reinterpreted Kant’s pacific union as a systemic phenomenon. Huntley’s argument spawned a new wave of inquiry into the evolutionary expansion of the democratic peace, with subsequent empirical studies finding a strong positive relationship between global democracy and systemic peace (e.g. Crescenzi and Enterline 1999; Gleditsch and Hegre 1997; Kadera, Crescenzi, and Shannon 2003; Mitchell, Gates, and Hegre 1999). Yet, there are many possible theoretical explanations of this aggregate relationship. In this paper, we compare two broad theoretical tales of the systemic democratic peace. The first approach, “might makes right”, emphasizes the importance of authority for creating liberal peace, especially the role played by a democratic hegemon and liberal major powers. The second approach, “right makes might”, traces the evolution of the systemic democratic peace to shifts in morality and liberal norms, drawing from work by Rawls (1999) and Wendt (1999). We compare and contrast these two broad theoretical tales, argue that both “might” and “right” are important, and conclude with some thoughts for future development of systemic democratic peace theory.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In spite of boisterous protests by friends and foes alike, the United States looks set to deploy a national missile defense (NMD). This article shows how such a defense can function as a necessary deterrent against rogue states’ nuclear, chemical, and biological ambitions. Drawing on previous work by Zagare (1992) and Kraig (1999), a three-stage game-theoretic framework is developed. It is argued that the Prisoners’ Dilemma and the Chicken game are inadequate for describing asymmetric theoretical deterrence situations in the 21st century. New games are needed for this new era, where new players are presumed to hold new preferences. Two important arguments concerning the players’ preferences are presented. First, the article allows for the possibility that the weaker party to a potential WMD conflict has so-called ‘madman preferences’, meaning that it prefers a WMD battle to a protracted conventional conflict. Second, it is assumed that the stronger party is normatively constrained by the tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons and an equivocal no-first-use pledge. When these assumptions are incorporated into the general model, the militarily weaker party gets the upper hand in 18 of the 24 resulting games. Moreover, under such preference restrictions, deterrence is stable and status quo revision is avoided in only two of the games. For deterrence to work against a WMD-armed rogue nation, the United States – lacking an adequate missile defense system – needs threat credibility and capability at both the first and the second stage. This two-stage credibility and capability, it is argued, should not be assumed a priori. However, by removing the second (WMD) stage of potential regional conflicts, a national missile defense might make the ‘madman card’ obsolete and nuclear or WMD blackmail much more difficult.

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: This paper tells the stroy of how I came to write the post-mortem for CIA on why it was slow to see that the Shah of Iran might fall. It summarizes some of the report's findings and discusses general difficulties with intelligence.

Publication Type: Abstract
Abstract: Rationale: The prima facia evidence indicates that self-reported health status is a good proxy for mental and physical health. It has been used in studies that attempt to measure the relationship of socioeconomic factors to health status. In relationship to self-reported health status and its established importance in the literature, we ask a number of questions. How can the information contained in this variable be most effectively used? Is it best to only cast it only as an objective to be maximized, whereby decision makers attempt to utilize the tools of public policy to satisfy it? Does or can it be used for other purposes that help to better inform public health policy? What if any is its relationship to health cost and demand?

Objectives: The goal of this study is to assess the interrelationship between self-reported health status and the demand for health services within the context of a developing economy. Using data , which has only recently become available, we will look at the interrelationship of self-reported health status of the elderly and various measures of the demand and costs for health services in the small island country of Barbados. The key objective is to model self-reported health status within the context of a simultaneous system and not as a stand-alone dependent variable, which one attempts to explain.

Methodology: Within the context of a simultaneous-equation model, we will assess the interrelationship between self-reported health status and other health related variables such as health expenditures, health insurance availability and various socioeconomic variables. Given the nature of the variables that we are attempting to model, we will use econometric estimation techniques used to handle a mix of discrete and continuous variables.

Research Hypothesis: It is our hypothesis that there is interdependent relationship between self-reported health status and the demand for health services. Not surprisingly, the opportunity costs of health services is hypothesized to be negatively related to self-reported health status, and in turn self-reported health status is hypothesized to be negatively related to health-service demand.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Paper proposal for the International Law section, ISA Honolulu, 1-5 March 2005 The eternal struggle between might and right is played out in different arenas, but it is especially visible in the nexus between international law and international politics. The recent controversy over the war in Iraq and the alleged transatlantic rift concern more than just which rules and principles will prevail. It is to a large extent a question about whose rules and principles will prevail. To put it differently, who has the power to change or preserve international legal rules? The aim of this paper is to examine the role of the current superpower in the process of change in customary international law. Unlike treaties, there is no agreement on when and how customary international law changes, as it consists of uniform (but not universal) state practice and opinio juris. This paper will argue that in addition to the extent of previous practice and the importance of the moral principles involved, a third factor is relevant in determining how much it takes to achieve the attempted change, namely, who initiates or blocks it. The case used to illustrate the theoretical discussions will be the attempt by a coalition of civic organizations - through the Non-Aligned Movement - to get the International Court of Justice to declare the threat and use of nuclear weapons illegal according to international law. Although the Court delivered its famous - and highly ambiguous - advisory opinion in 1996, it is an issue which has regained currency and importance lately as the threat of weapons of mass-destruction is discussed in conjunction with various rogue regimes and non-state actors. In the examination of the case, traditional legal theory will be complemented with IR literature which contributes a much needed power perspective. The paper aims at furthering the understanding of international legal or normative change, which is often sorely overlooked in mainstream IR. Author Ph. D. Cand. Anette Ahrnens Department of Political Science Lund University Box 52 SE-221 00 Lund SWEDEN Anette.Ahrnens@svet.lu.se Phone +46 46 222 89 32