Democracy through War?

This article brings together three strands of democracy research which have thus far seldom been informed by one another: the empirical research associated with the ‘democratic peace’ thesis, the juridical-normative questions of legality, and moral-philosophical reasoning about just war. Linking the statistical analysis of the democratic peace to the findings of comparative research on democratization and to the normative debates occurring in law and philosophy on just and legitimized wars, there is an inescapable conclusion that: jus ad bellum and jus post bellum criteria must be closely tied. The protection of people threatened by mass murder and brutal violations of human rights requires not only a short-term military intervention, but also the intensive support to establish sustainable rule of law and democracy. External actors intervening for humanitarian reasons equally have a duty to contribute to long-term sustainable state- and democracy-building. Forced regime change and an international trusteeship protectorate can become legitimate and necessary means to guarantee justice after war and to reconcile jus ad bellum principles with duties post bellum. A premature withdrawal of intervening forces, for example in Afghanistan or in Iraq, would amount to a flagrant violation of external actors' post-war duties.     

Surveillance to Combat Terrorist Financing in Europe: Whose Liberty,Whose Security?

Abstract

This article analyses recent developments in the campaign to combat terrorist financing in Europe and questions the utility of financial surveillance as a method to counter terrorism. A background presentation of surveillance in modern society is followed by an overview of earlier international initiatives to interdict money laundering. The measures used to combat terrorist finance are built upon this foundation of surveillance and criminal investigation. Applying these measures in the ‘war on terror’ has unintended consequences for the financial transactions of citizens and non-citizens alike. The article concludes by considering these problems and their impact on society within the context of a larger concern for the impact to individual liberty from these surveillance practices in pursuit of security in the early twenty-first century.     

Democracy promotion and China: blocker or bystander?

The increasingly prosperous, mighty, and assertive China is arguably the most powerful country blocking democracy today. In addition to withholding democratic rights of one-fifth of the world's population, authoritarian China represents an alternative development model that has gained significant traction. China thus constitutes a challenge to democracy promoters. But does Beijing also countervail democracy promotion by the European Union and the United States? After a summary of the party-state's response to democracy promotion at home, we test the hypothesis that geostrategic interests or a perceived risk of regime survival will lead the People's Republic to countervail democracy promotion outside its own borders. We do so by focusing on the most likely cases in China's near-abroad: Myanmar and Hong Kong. Our analysis of Myanmar suggests that Beijing remains focused on securing economic and security interests irrespective of regime type when regime survival at home is not at risk. The case of Hong Kong, on the other hand, allows us to identify the tactics used by Beijing when there is a significant risk of democratic spillover. This case also demonstrates that the People's Republic of China is able to stifle United States and European Union democracy support when it wishes to do so.     

Comparative Regionalism: A Field Whose Time has Come?

Is comparative regionalism a field whose time has come? While the contemporary interest in comparing regions and regionalisms may be not completely new, it is different from older approaches. Our understanding of what makes regions has changed with social constructivist and critical theoretical approaches that have led to a less behavioural and more nuanced, complex, contested and fluid understanding of regions. Moreover, the globalisation phenomenon has deeply affected all social sciences and radically redefined the relative autonomy of regions. In keeping with the rapid growth and development of regionalism and institutions in the non-Western world, including in regions which were relatively late starters, such as Asia, there have emerged new ways of looking at regional cooperation, including claims about distinctive approaches and even ‘models’ that are not only different from those identified with the EU, but also supposedly more appropriate and thus ‘workable’ for non-Western regions than the EU straightjacket.     

Microstate Democracy: Majority or Consensus; Diffusion or Problem-Solving?

While several studies suggest that small country size is conducive to democracy, the understanding of this link between smallness and democracy is still less than complete. By examining the nature and profile of microstate democracy in the year 2005, this article aims at promoting a better understanding. Two research tasks are pursued. First, the article investigates if microstate democracy is predominantly about majority democracy, or alternatively consensus democracy, or a blend of majority and consensus. Second, while testing the validity of diffusion and rationality assumptions for explaining country choices of democratic form, the article aims at drawing forth a better appreciation of the foundations of microstate democracy. The findings indicate that smallness is particularly conducive to majority democracy, and that diffusion goes a long way to explain this small state preference for majority rule. However, the microstates within the majoritarian framework are often inclined to resort to non-majoritarian choices, and elements of rationality are therefore in the picture as well. Small size does not appear to associate systematically with culture to the exclusion of rationality or with rationality to the exclusion of culture.     

What’s the Bandwidth for Democracy? Deconstructing Internet Penetration and Citizen Attitudes About Governance

Recent world events have highlighted the democratic potential of information and communication technologies. This article draws upon the democracy literature to develop a multilevel conceptual framework that links country-level Internet penetration and individual-level Internet use to citizen attitudes about governance in 34 developing countries. In doing so, it deconstructs “Internet penetration” into three dimensions—hardware (e.g., computers), users, and broadband—to provide greater theoretical specificity about how Internet diffusion leads citizens to adopt democratic attitudes. Results from multilevel analyses indicate that individual Internet use and the diffusion of Internet hardware shape citizens’ perceptions of the supply of democracy in their countries, and individual Internet use and diffusion of broadband lead citizens to adopt stronger democratic preferences. Theoretical and normative implications are discussed.     

Does Democracy Decrease Fear of Terrorism?

ABSTRACT

Fear is an integral part of terrorism. Fighting fear can thus be a crucial part of counterterrorist policies. In the case of terrorism, citizens look to the state for protection. Yet, most studies of terrorist fear emphasize individual-level factors. We lack studies that link fear to features of the state, especially whether democratic states are capable of reducing fear among its citizens. Our study aims to fill part of this research gap by asking whether democratic government reduces or increases fear of terrorism. We find that there is substantial cross-country variance in citizens’ fear of terrorism. The results suggest that fear is more widespread among citizens in non-democratic countries compared to citizens in democratic countries. Actual exposure to terrorist attacks has no impact on citizens’ fear of terrorism when we account for whether the country is a democracy or not. Hence, democratic government displays resilience towards fear mongering.     

Is Russia Sabotaging Democracy in the West?

While there may be some ideological components at stake in the Russian Federation undermining democracy in the West, the Kremlin primarily views interference as a tool to accomplish its strategic interests. Russia is less concerned about regime type (authoritarian versus democratic) and more concerned with how a foreign power advances its strategic interests. While many governments that advance Russia's interests tend to be authoritarian, this is not always the case. Russia does not view non-Western democracies as a threat because the Kremlin considers them predictable and consistent. However, the use of “sharp power” to interfere in the internal affairs of Western democracies is coupled to an assessment of how such interference either promotes Russian interests or decreases Western capabilities to interfere in Russian foreign and domestic policy.     

Bangladeshi Militants: What Do We Know?

ABSTRACT

Although militant groups have been present in Bangladesh since the 1990s, the country catapulted to international media attention on July 1, 2016, after an attack on a café in the upscale neighborhood of the capital Dhaka. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack which killed 29 people, mostly foreigners. The attack came in the wake of a series of attacks on religious and ethnic minorities, foreigners, liberal activists, authors, and publishers by both an AQIS affiliate and ISIS. The government denied the existence of militant groups tied to international terrorist organizations. Despite these developments and instances of Bangladeshis joining the ISIS in Iraq and Syria, there has been very little in-depth discussion about who these militants are and what is driving Bangladeshis to militancy. This article addresses this lacuna. This paper examines the common traits of alleged Bangladeshi militants and explores the factors of radicalization. Drawing on media reports of the profiles of the alleged militants, between July 2014 and June 2015, and between July 2016 and August 2017, the article finds that most of the Bangladeshi militants are young, educated males increasingly coming from well-off families. We have also found evidence that four factors—social relationships, use of the Internet, personal crises, and external relations—appear most frequently in the narratives of Bangladeshi militants.     

Is Democracy Promotion Effective? Comparing Conditionality and Incentives

Many studies suggest that conditionality is a more effective democracy promotion strategy (DPS) than incentives. This paper confirms the validity of this hypothesis by demonstrating that conditional pre-accession political reforms, required from the eastern and central European applicants by the European Union, have substantially progressed from 1998, while the impact of incentives democratic aid programmes carried out by donors since l994 has proved to be either very modest or non-existent. Then it explains these unequal performances by synthesizing insights provided by the analysis of both DPS processes of implementation, interviews conducted with the European Union Eastern Enlargement negotiators and literature devoted to democratic aid programmes, international co-operation and compliance of states with international institutions norms and rules. On the whole, the study challenges the endogeneous theory of comparative politics according to which 'democracy is a domestic affair par excellence'.     

The European Union and Iran: What Next?

EU-Iranian relations have reached a stalemate. EU engagement with Iran makes sense as long as it is accompanied by stringent sanctions that are imposed by the international community (i.e. E3?+?3 format and UNSC) and that focus on the nuclear file only. In the end, such an approach could allow the EU to find that delicate balance between the US position of imposing sanctions for the sake of sanctioning, thereby rendering them ineffective, and a Russian-Chinese position of applying minimal sanctions that would make them equally inefficient.     

Ethnic Riots in Kosovo: What Went Right?

The world was shocked when deadly riots broke out in Kosovoduring March 2004, after nearly five years of involvement andfinancial support by NATO and the United Nations. But, despitethe widespread nature of the rioting, violence did not spreadinto communities of return that had benefited substantiallyfrom direct international financial aid and interventions inthe same way that riots infected the wider province. This wasthe experience of communities assisted by at least two internationalNGOs, both of which used the ‘Do No Harm’ methodologyof enhancing ‘connectors’ while minimizing ‘dividers’between ethnic groups. American Refugee Committee's programmeis described and displacement data are presented. In those communitiesassisted by American Refugee Committee, 85 per cent of the returneesdid not flee during the riots. It is concluded that communitiesof return succeeded in thwarting violence because they had astake in peace.     

Democracy: Past,present . . . and future? (Part I)

The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy by Anthony H. Birch. London: Routledge, 1993. Pp.vi + 260; 2 indices, bibliography. £40 (hardback); £12.99 (paperback). ISBN 0 415 09108 X and 091071

Democracy: The Unfinished Journey 508 BC to AD 1993 edited by John Dunn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. £11.95 (corrected paperback edition 1993). Pp.xii + 290; index, further reading list. ISBN 0 19 827934 5

Democracy by Ross Harrison. London: Routledge, 1993, Pp.ix + 246; index. £35 (hardback). ISBN 0 415 03254 7

Democracy and Complexity by Danilo Zolo. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992. £39.50 (hardback); £11.95 paperback). Pp.xii + 202; index, bibliography. ISBN 0 74 561 095 1 and     

Democracy and Nuclear Arms Control—Destiny or Ambiguity?

Is there a particularly democratic way of dealing with nuclear arms control? Against the background of democratic peace (DP) theory, and using Immanuel Kant's writing as a starting point, this article argues that democracies should indeed develop a preference for arms control, but that Liberalism as well as the nature of nuclear weapons opens the possibility for contingent developments within a DP framework. While DP theory can thus account for the existence of variance, we maintain that a social constructivist complement based on role, identity, and enemy perception can best explain why a given democracy follows a specific path. Case studies of six Western democracies reveal a considerable variance in their nuclear arms control policies, which can indeed be traced back to the countries' respective roles, identities, and images of the Kantian “unjust enemy.”