| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
164673
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Political leaders are ultimately responsible for their country's foreign policy, but our understanding of how executive turnover affects the likelihood of international treaty ratification remains limited. For contributing to this debate, I define leader change as the replacement of the executive leader by a new one who relies on different social groups for support. Focusing then on those cases where new leaders can assume office only from predecessors who plausibly supported treaty ratification, I expect that—in light of the predecessor's support for an agreement and the change in the domestic support base—leadership turnover makes ratification less likely. The empirical implication is tested with quantitative methods using data on multilateral treaties of the post–Cold War era. The main findings and a series of additional analyses provide strong and robust evidence for the theoretical argument. This research sheds new light on the determinants of multilateral cooperation as well as the role of government leaders in international affairs and foreign-policy decision-making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
189897
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Why is the implementation of civil war peace agreements comparatively higher in some countries than in other countries? In this study, I address this puzzle by investigating the effects of insider-outsider leader turnover on the execution of peace agreements. The idea is that leaders should be the fundamental units of analysis to explain the implementation of peace agreements due to more frequent leadership changes than state-level variables, such as the level of democracy, political system, military capability, and GDP per capita. Besides, leader turnover poses a commitment problem in peace processes if outsider leaders differ in their resolve and revise inherited agreements. I test this hypothesis quantitatively using feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) regressions to analyze the panel dataset of this research that covers 34 comprehensive peace agreements of 31 countries from 1989 to 2015. The findings of this study demonstrate the positive impacts of insider leader turnover and the adverse effects of outsider leader turnover on the execution of peace agreements. Hence, whether the implementation of peace agreements will continue depends on who comes to power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
165885
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How do new leaders impact crisis negotiations? We argue that opposing states know less about such a leader’s resolve over the issues at stake. To fully appreciate the consequences, we develop a multi-period bargaining model of negotiations. In equilibrium, as a proposer becomes close to certain of its opponent’s type, the duration and intensity of war goes to 0. We then test whether increase in leader tenure decrease the duration of militarized interstate disputes. Our estimates indicate that crises involving new leaders are 25.3 percent more likely to last one month than crises involving leaders with four years of tenure. Moreover, such conflicts are more likely to result in higher fatality levels. These results further indicate that leader tenure is a useful proxy for uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|