Choosing to Intervene: US Domestic Politics and Moral Imperatives

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The end of the Cold War meant fewer constraints on humanitarian inter- vention, and the third pillar of the nascent R2P norm suggests at least a moral imperative to intervene when another country’s population is threatened. Yet US leaders continue to shy away from protecting innocents outside of the United States from harm — despite the fact that presidential candidates often campaign on restoring America’s moral lead in the world and, in particular, on US respon- sibilities to avert mass atrocities. This paper investigates the extent to which US military intervention abroad is driven by domestic considerations. Using logistic regression analysis, we aim to explain decisions by Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. to send troops into harms way.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)497–505
Number of pages9
JournalPeace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Keywords

  • foreign policy, military intervention, domestic political pressures, USA

Cite this

@article{49c11a4f9ce74f29b7b186436f284830,
title = "Choosing to Intervene: US Domestic Politics and Moral Imperatives",
abstract = "The end of the Cold War meant fewer constraints on humanitarian inter- vention, and the third pillar of the nascent R2P norm suggests at least a moral imperative to intervene when another country’s population is threatened. Yet US leaders continue to shy away from protecting innocents outside of the United States from harm — despite the fact that presidential candidates often campaign on restoring America’s moral lead in the world and, in particular, on US respon- sibilities to avert mass atrocities. This paper investigates the extent to which US military intervention abroad is driven by domestic considerations. Using logistic regression analysis, we aim to explain decisions by Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. to send troops into harms way.",
keywords = "foreign policy, military intervention, domestic political pressures, USA",
author = "Roberta Haar and Lutz Krebs",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1515/peps-2015-0030",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "497–505",
journal = "Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy",
issn = "1554-8597",
publisher = "De Gruyter",
number = "4",

}

Choosing to Intervene : US Domestic Politics and Moral Imperatives. / Haar, Roberta; Krebs, Lutz.

In: Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2015, p. 497–505.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choosing to Intervene

T2 - US Domestic Politics and Moral Imperatives

AU - Haar, Roberta

AU - Krebs, Lutz

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The end of the Cold War meant fewer constraints on humanitarian inter- vention, and the third pillar of the nascent R2P norm suggests at least a moral imperative to intervene when another country’s population is threatened. Yet US leaders continue to shy away from protecting innocents outside of the United States from harm — despite the fact that presidential candidates often campaign on restoring America’s moral lead in the world and, in particular, on US respon- sibilities to avert mass atrocities. This paper investigates the extent to which US military intervention abroad is driven by domestic considerations. Using logistic regression analysis, we aim to explain decisions by Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. to send troops into harms way.

AB - The end of the Cold War meant fewer constraints on humanitarian inter- vention, and the third pillar of the nascent R2P norm suggests at least a moral imperative to intervene when another country’s population is threatened. Yet US leaders continue to shy away from protecting innocents outside of the United States from harm — despite the fact that presidential candidates often campaign on restoring America’s moral lead in the world and, in particular, on US respon- sibilities to avert mass atrocities. This paper investigates the extent to which US military intervention abroad is driven by domestic considerations. Using logistic regression analysis, we aim to explain decisions by Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. to send troops into harms way.

KW - foreign policy, military intervention, domestic political pressures, USA

U2 - 10.1515/peps-2015-0030

DO - 10.1515/peps-2015-0030

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 497

EP - 505

JO - Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy

JF - Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy

SN - 1554-8597

IS - 4

ER -