Want to avoid a coup? Sign an arms control agreement
The question of whether democracies have different foreign policies than other kinds of regime has intrigued international relations scholars for years. Realists often insist that regime type doesn’t matter much; scholars from other intellectual traditions are more receptive to the idea that democracies act differently. Whole forests have been felled exploring the question of whether, ...
The question of whether democracies have different foreign policies than other kinds of regime has intrigued international relations scholars for years. Realists often insist that regime type doesn't matter much; scholars from other intellectual traditions are more receptive to the idea that democracies act differently. Whole forests have been felled exploring the question of whether, when, and against whom democracies will fight.
The question of whether democracies have different foreign policies than other kinds of regime has intrigued international relations scholars for years. Realists often insist that regime type doesn’t matter much; scholars from other intellectual traditions are more receptive to the idea that democracies act differently. Whole forests have been felled exploring the question of whether, when, and against whom democracies will fight.
Writing in the April issue of World Politics, Isabella Alcañiz pursues a different twist on that venerable question. She begins by noting that newly democratic governments sign international arms control agreements at a significantly higher rate than non-democratic governments and established democracies. She hypothesizes that they do so largely for reputational reasons:
A positive reputation accomplishes two objectives. First, it signals to the international community that regime change effectively entailed a cahnge of country tape away from the past autocracy. Second, and more importantly, it exposes potential conspirators to the possibility of diplomatic and economic sanctions if they were to attempt to reverse the transition.
In effect, leaders of new and fragile democracies seek to enmesh their states in a web of multilateral agreements in order to make political mischief at home less likely. Alcañiz acknowledges that new and fragile autocratic leaders may attempt a similar strategy, particularly with human rights treaties, which are easy to sign and usually have no enforcement mechanisms. But she argues that arms control and security treaties are particularly attractive for new democracies precisely because noncompliance does carry significant risks.
Alcañiz’s survey of treaty ratification patterns and the evolution of democratic transitions strongly suggests that this strategy is effective. “[T]he more a new democracy commits to arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament treaties,” she concludes, “the less likely it is to experience a regime reversal.”
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Russians Are Unraveling Before Our Eyes
A wave of fresh humiliations has the Kremlin struggling to control the narrative.
A BRICS Currency Could Shake the Dollar’s Dominance
De-dollarization’s moment might finally be here.
Is Netflix’s ‘The Diplomat’ Factual or Farcical?
A former U.S. ambassador, an Iran expert, a Libya expert, and a former U.K. Conservative Party advisor weigh in.
The Battle for Eurasia
China, Russia, and their autocratic friends are leading another epic clash over the world’s largest landmass.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
