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, ...

624075_120918_wpj_logo.gif
624075_120918_wpj_logo.gif

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.

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 an associate professor at Indiana University's School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of books on the U.N. Security Council and the International Criminal Court, and is at work on a new book about governance of the oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist

More from Foreign Policy

Soldiers of the P18 Gotland Regiment of the Swedish Army camouflage an armoured vehicle during a field exercise near Visby on the Swedish island of Gotland on May 17.
Soldiers of the P18 Gotland Regiment of the Swedish Army camouflage an armoured vehicle during a field exercise near Visby on the Swedish island of Gotland on May 17.

What Are Sweden and Finland Thinking?

European leaders have reassessed Russia’s intentions and are balancing against the threat that Putin poses to the territorial status quo. 

Ukrainian infantry take part in a training exercise with tanks near Dnipropetrovsk oblast, Ukraine, less than 50 miles from the front lines, on May 9.
Ukrainian infantry take part in a training exercise with tanks near Dnipropetrovsk oblast, Ukraine, less than 50 miles from the front lines, on May 9.

The Window To Expel Russia From Ukraine Is Now

Russia is digging in across the southeast.

U.S. President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken participate in a virtual summit with the leaders of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue countries at the White House in Washington on March 12.
U.S. President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken participate in a virtual summit with the leaders of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue countries at the White House in Washington on March 12.

Why China Is Paranoid About the Quad

Beijing has long lived with U.S. alliances in Asia, but a realigned India would change the game.

Members of the National Defence Training Association of Finland attend a training.
Members of the National Defence Training Association of Finland attend a training.

Finns Show Up for Conscription. Russians Dodge It.

Two seemingly similar systems produce very different militaries.