Co-Optation at the Creation: Leaders, Elite Consensus, and Postwar International Order

IF 2.2 2区社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Security Studies Pub Date : 2022-08-08 DOI:10.1080/09636412.2022.2133628

Austin Carson, Matthew J. Conklin

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article analyzes how democratic leaders cultivate an elite consensus in favor of participating in international institutions. We theorize two tactics to prevent elite dissent. Delegating early policy development to technocratic and nonpartisan experts can set a depoliticized tone. Later integration of opposition elites into the process can create powerful advocates that expand support to a consensus. We assess contrasting fates of the United Nations (UN) and International Trade Organization (ITO). Haunted by Woodrow Wilson’s failure to win approval for the League of Nations, leaders outsourced early planning for a UN to the Council on Foreign Relations. Later, Franklin D. Roosevelt and top aides tapped moderate Republicans for the US delegation to San Francisco, creating powerful Republican advocates. In contrast, leaders developed the ITO in-house and excluded legislative elites in final negotiations, provoking elite dissent. These tactics shed new light on leaders, elites, and the domestic politics of international order and hegemony.

查看原文本刊更多论文

创立时的合作:领导人、精英共识与战后国际秩序

摘要本文分析了民主领导人如何培养有利于参与国际机构的精英共识。我们提出了两种防止精英异议的策略。将早期政策制定交给技术官僚和无党派专家可以设定一种非政治化的基调。反对派精英稍后融入这一进程可以产生强有力的倡导者，将支持扩大到共识。我们评估了联合国（UN）和国际贸易组织（ITO）截然不同的命运。由于伍德罗·威尔逊未能获得国际联盟的批准，各国领导人将联合国的早期规划外包给了外交关系委员会。后来，富兰克林·D·罗斯福和高级助手任命温和派共和党人为美国旧金山代表团成员，从而产生了强大的共和党支持者。相比之下，领导人在内部发展ITO，并在最终谈判中排斥立法精英，引发精英异议。这些策略为领导人、精英以及国际秩序和霸权的国内政治提供了新的视角。

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

Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.