Peace at Home, Conflict Abroad: Government Ideology, Mission Type, and Parliamentary Support for Military Interventions

IF 1.7 2区社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Foreign Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2023-11-03 DOI:10.1093/fpa/orad032

V. Vignoli, Francesco Baraldi

{"title":"Peace at Home, Conflict Abroad: Government Ideology, Mission Type, and Parliamentary Support for Military Interventions","authors":"V. Vignoli, Francesco Baraldi","doi":"10.1093/fpa/orad032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International relations scholarship has long overlooked the role of parliament in shaping states’ decision to go to war. In contrast, recent studies explored variations in parliamentary war powers across time and countries and their impact on troop deployments abroad. However, a systematic analysis of the determinants of support for military interventions in parliament is still missing. This article fills this literature gap by examining votes on 119 missions in twenty-one democracies between 1990 and 2019. Our findings suggest that parliamentary contestation is fundamentally driven by government ideology and the type of mission. Parliamentary support for military intervention is significantly higher when a left-wing government is in power. Moreover, “inclusive” missions with a robust humanitarian dimension draw a considerably lower level of contestation than “strategic” missions aimed at contrasting a security threat. Through such findings, the article contributes to the debates on the relevance of domestic political institutions in foreign policy and the party politics of military interventions.","PeriodicalId":46954,"journal":{"name":"Foreign Policy Analysis","volume":"183 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foreign Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orad032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

International relations scholarship has long overlooked the role of parliament in shaping states’ decision to go to war. In contrast, recent studies explored variations in parliamentary war powers across time and countries and their impact on troop deployments abroad. However, a systematic analysis of the determinants of support for military interventions in parliament is still missing. This article fills this literature gap by examining votes on 119 missions in twenty-one democracies between 1990 and 2019. Our findings suggest that parliamentary contestation is fundamentally driven by government ideology and the type of mission. Parliamentary support for military intervention is significantly higher when a left-wing government is in power. Moreover, “inclusive” missions with a robust humanitarian dimension draw a considerably lower level of contestation than “strategic” missions aimed at contrasting a security threat. Through such findings, the article contributes to the debates on the relevance of domestic political institutions in foreign policy and the party politics of military interventions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

国内和平，国外冲突：政府意识形态、任务类型和议会对军事干预的支持

长期以来，国际关系学术界一直忽视议会在影响国家战争决策中的作用。与此相反，最近的研究探讨了议会战争权力在不同时期和不同国家的变化及其对海外军队部署的影响。然而，关于议会支持军事干预的决定因素的系统分析仍然缺失。本文通过研究 1990 年至 2019 年间 21 个民主国家 119 项任务的投票情况，填补了这一文献空白。我们的研究结果表明，议会争论的根本原因在于政府意识形态和任务类型。当左翼政府执政时，议会对军事干预的支持率明显更高。此外，与旨在应对安全威胁的 "战略 "任务相比，具有强烈人道主义色彩的 "包容性 "任务所引起的争议程度要低得多。通过这些研究结果，文章为有关国内政治机构在外交政策中的相关性以及军事干预的政党政治的辩论做出了贡献。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Foreign Policy Analysis INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

9.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Reflecting the diverse, comparative and multidisciplinary nature of the field, Foreign Policy Analysis provides an open forum for research publication that enhances the communication of concepts and ideas across theoretical, methodological, geographical and disciplinary boundaries. By emphasizing accessibility of content for scholars of all perspectives and approaches in the editorial and review process, Foreign Policy Analysis serves as a source for efforts at theoretical and methodological integration and deepening the conceptual debates throughout this rich and complex academic research tradition. Foreign policy analysis, as a field of study, is characterized by its actor-specific focus. The underlying, often implicit argument is that the source of international politics and change in international politics is human beings, acting individually or in groups. In the simplest terms, foreign policy analysis is the study of the process, effects, causes or outputs of foreign policy decision-making in either a comparative or case-specific manner.