Credibility in Crises: How Patrons Reassure Their Allies

IF 2.4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Lauren Sukin, Alexander Lanoszka
{"title":"Credibility in Crises: How Patrons Reassure Their Allies","authors":"Lauren Sukin, Alexander Lanoszka","doi":"10.1093/isq/sqae062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"s How do citizens of US allies assess different reassurance strategies? This article investigates the effects of US reassurance policies on public opinion in allied states. We design and conduct a survey experiment in five Central–Eastern European states—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania—in March 2022. Set against the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this experiment asked respondents to evaluate four types of reassurance strategies, each a critical tool in US crisis response policy: military deployments, diplomatic summitry, economic sanctions, and public reaffirmations of security guarantees. The international security literature typically values capabilities for their deterrence and reassurance benefits, while largely dismissing public reaffirmations as “cheap talk” and economic sanctions as being ineffective. Yet we find preferences for the use of economic sanctions and public statements as reassurance strategies during crises, in part because these approaches help states manage escalation risks.","PeriodicalId":48313,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Quarterly","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae062","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

s How do citizens of US allies assess different reassurance strategies? This article investigates the effects of US reassurance policies on public opinion in allied states. We design and conduct a survey experiment in five Central–Eastern European states—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania—in March 2022. Set against the backdrop of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this experiment asked respondents to evaluate four types of reassurance strategies, each a critical tool in US crisis response policy: military deployments, diplomatic summitry, economic sanctions, and public reaffirmations of security guarantees. The international security literature typically values capabilities for their deterrence and reassurance benefits, while largely dismissing public reaffirmations as “cheap talk” and economic sanctions as being ineffective. Yet we find preferences for the use of economic sanctions and public statements as reassurance strategies during crises, in part because these approaches help states manage escalation risks.
危机中的信誉:支持者如何向盟友保证
s 美国盟国的公民如何评价不同的再保证战略?本文研究了美国安抚政策对盟国民意的影响。我们于 2022 年 3 月在五个中东欧国家--爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚、立陶宛、波兰和罗马尼亚--设计并开展了一项调查实验。实验以俄罗斯入侵乌克兰为背景,要求受访者评估四种安抚策略,每种策略都是美国危机应对政策的重要工具:军事部署、外交峰会、经济制裁和公开重申安全保证。国际安全文献通常重视能力的威慑和安抚作用,而将公开重申视为 "廉价言论",并认为经济制裁无效。然而,我们发现在危机期间,人们更倾向于使用经济制裁和公开声明作为安抚策略,部分原因是这些方法有助于国家管理危机升级的风险。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: International Studies Quarterly, the official journal of the International Studies Association, seeks to acquaint a broad audience of readers with the best work being done in the variety of intellectual traditions included under the rubric of international studies. Therefore, the editors welcome all submissions addressing this community"s theoretical, empirical, and normative concerns. First preference will continue to be given to articles that address and contribute to important disciplinary and interdisciplinary questions and controversies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信