| Summary/Abstract |
Research shows that autocracies as well as democracies have reasons to avoid
strong enemies. What, then, make democracies distinctive from autocracies
in conflict selection? A critical difference may lie in the normative constraints
democracies experience. Focusing on the roles of public sentiment and liberalism,
we argue that democrats bearing high levels of accountability are less likely to
choose armed conflict without justifiable causes. We assess the roles of three liberal
factors in regard to the characteristics of target countries: respect of human rights,
democratic representation, and economic interdependence. Material factors, such
as relative military capability and geographic constraints are also considered.
The results show that both autocracies and democracies tend to attack easier
foes, but democracies avoid attacking countries that respect human rights and are
economically interdependent. Additionally, unlike autocracies, democracies do not
view other democracies as attractive targets of military attacks.
|