The 2016 US election highlighted the potential for foreign governments to employ social media for strategic advantages, but the particular mechanisms through which social media affect international politics are underdeveloped. This Element shows that the populace often seeks to navigate complex issues of foreign policy through social media, which can amplify information and tilt the balance of support on these issues. In this context, the open media environment of a democracy is particularly susceptible to foreign influence whereas the comparatively closed media environment of a non-democracy provides efficient ways for these governments to promote regime survival.
The 2016 US election highlighted the potential for foreign governments to employ social media for strategic advantages, but the particular mechanisms through which social media affect international politics are underdeveloped. This Element shows that the populace often seeks to navigate complex issues of foreign policy through social media, which can amplify information and tilt the balance of support on these issues. In this context, the open media environment of a democracy is particularly susceptible to foreign influence whereas the comparatively closed media environment of a non-democracy provides efficient ways for these governments to promote regime survival.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Acknowledgments; 1 Introduction; 2 Bearing the Financial Burden of War; 3 Partisan Politics in the Early Wars: Conflicts of 1798, 1812, and 1898; 4 The "Liberty Bond" Approach to War Finance: World Wars I and II; 5 From Taxation to Borrowing: Declining Fiscal Sacrifice in Korea and Vietnam; 6 "Hide-and-Seek" Wars: The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars; 7 Cross-National Survey Evidence from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France; 8 Conclusion; Appendix; Notes; Index
"Drones quite possibly represent the most transformative military innovation since jet engines and atomic weaponry. No longer do humans have to engage in close military action or be in the same geographical vicinity as the target. Now, through satellite imaging and remote technology, countries such as the United States can destroy small targets halfway around the world with pinpoint accuracy. In the last several years, many of the military advancements have been rivaled by those in the commercial realm. Civilian industries have clamored to acquire drones for everything from monitoring crops to filming Hollywood movies to delivering packages. Not surprisingly, the use of drones has generated a lively debate, but no book thus far has engaged the range of themes surrounding drones. How do drones work? To what extent has the technology proliferated to other nations outside the US? How can they be used on the ground and in maritime environments? How are they being integrated into both military and civilian life? In Drones: What Everyone Needs to Know, the international relations scholar (and former air force officer) Sarah E. Kreps provides a concise synthesis of the topic. The book explains how they and the systems associated with them work, how they are being used today, and what will become of the technology in the future. What readers need now is a more practical guide to how this technology is reshaping both military and civilian life; this book is that guide. The drone revolution has already changed warfare, and will soon become a commonplace tool in a civilian context too. It is clear that drone technology is here to stay. Drones: What Everyone Needs to Know explains how the revolution happened, what its current contours are, and where we might be headed next."--Publisher's description.
In 'Coalitions of Convenience', Sarah E. Kreps shows that even powerful states have incentives to intervene multilaterally. Coalitions and international organization blessing confer legitimacy and provide ways to share what are often costly burdens of war.
Debates about the sources of presidential power in wartime often turn on constitutional separation of powers questions about where executive authority ends and legislative authority begins. Such legal premises of presidential power are both ambiguous and contested, however, lending credibility to alternative theories of presidential power that hinge on political considerations such as public support, a source of legitimacy rather than legality for particular actions. This article builds on the distinction between legality and legitimacy in presidential power in wartime and develops a legitimacy framework that identifies rational‐legal, traditional, and charismatic sources of legitimacy. An examination of the historical record of American military force from 1798 to the present suggests that executives have often pursued a legal basis for intervention and obtained legislative authorization for the use of force, but have also acted as though sources of legitimacy are viable substitutes for legality. Early in American history, those sources consisted of traditional authority such as Manifest Destiny; in the early half of the twentieth century, they took the form of charismatic authority such as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine; and since 1945, rational‐legal authority through international organizations. Analyzing the argument in light of the historical record shows that the turn to unilateralism is not a new feature of the executive–legislative balance of power, but rather an undercurrent of intervention politics, atop of which rest efforts at legitimation for the use of force.
The question of international cooperation on nuclear security presents states with a conundrum. While states are wary of the potential for cheating and opportunism that would favor more legalized agreements, highly legalized agreements also create the risk of being constrained in an agreement with which others might not comply, leaving one state vulnerable. How do states balance these competing incentives? Through the study of all arms control agreements concluded, negotiated, and seriously considered since 1945, this analysis finds that at least some aspects of the legalization parameters that would make commitments more credible and sustainable through the future—in particular obligation and to a lesser extent delegation—also make bargaining over the terms of cooperation more difficult, sometimes delaying if not altogether subverting that process. These findings have implications not just for how theories of institutional design and cooperation apply to nuclear issues but also for policies related to the conduct of arms control negotiations.
Abstract The question of international cooperation on nuclear security presents states with a conundrum. While states are wary of the potential for cheating and opportunism that would favor more legalized agreements, highly legalized agreements also create the risk of being constrained in an agreement with which others might not comply, leaving one state vulnerable. How do states balance these competing incentives? Through the study of all arms control agreements concluded, negotiated, and seriously considered since 1945, this analysis finds that at least some aspects of the legalization parameters that would make commitments more credible and sustainable through the future—in particular obligation and to a lesser extent delegation—also make bargaining over the terms of cooperation more difficult, sometimes delaying if not altogether subverting that process. These findings have implications not just for how theories of institutional design and cooperation apply to nuclear issues but also for policies related to the conduct of arms control negotiations.
