Generating a Complete Typology of Modern Conceptions of Sovereignty

January 2009

In this paper, I will argue that modern conceptions of sovereignty derive from a taxonomy of political philosophies.  The paper begins with the premises that international relations, like politics in general, is driven by ideology and is concerned with the use of coercion.  It then undertakes a two-step critique of J. Samuel Barkin and Bruce Cronin's argument in "The State and the Nation" that the international community has alternated between state- and nation-centered conceptions of sovereignty.  First, it generates an alternative taxonomy of political ideologies.  Second, it compares the relative descriptive and explanatory powers of these two ideological frameworks, employing several of Barkin and Cronin's historical case studies.

Proposal for a Libertarian Peace Theory

November 2008

“[T]he most useful way to test the causal claims of the democratic peace theory,” writes Miriam Elman in Paths to Peace, is to study what democracies do when they “come into conflict.”  Yet this method only lets us determine the impact of a state’s “democratic nature” upon those conflicts.  We cannot ascertain whether two states’ “democratic nature” causes them not to have “opposing interests” in the first place.  Other studies also ignore this possibility: qualitative analyses have trouble accounting for “non-events,” and quantitative surveys tend not to discriminate among them.  Nevertheless, this paper argues that one variant of democracy – libertarianism – generates a harmony of interests among the states that adopt it.

The Arab-Israeli Conflict as a Prisoner's Dilemma

May 2008

Scholars of Arab-Israeli strife often argue that the two contending sides do not hold irreconcilable aims, but that enmity persists because the very structure of the conflict inhibits trust and cooperation.  This paper examines that argument by evaluating whether the game-theoretical "prisoners' dilemma" – in which two actors' mirroring incentive structures impede a mutually acceptable solution – accurately models the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Capitalist and Corporatist Imperialisms

November 2007

"Without a doubt," writes D. K. Fieldhouse in Economics and Empire, "the most complex and influential explanation of the 'new imperialism' of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is that which sees the basic cause in the necessity for capitalist Europe and North America to find satisfactory new fields for investment of surplus capital."  This theory does provide a plausible explanation of imperial-era economics, but mistakenly portrays capitalism as fueling the political turmoil of the "new imperialism."

Evaluating Competing Explanations of Iraq's 1990 Invasion of Kuwait

November 2007

Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990, writes Andrew Parasiliti, "in an attempt to shore up its declining power and influence" vis-à-vis its Mideast neighbors.  Though he makes his case by plotting Iraqi power relative to seven other Mideast states over the course of four decades, he also cites Saddam Hussein's speech to his Revolutionary Command Council in January 1991.  This speech does not contradict Parasiliti's portrayal of an Iraq preoccupied with its relative strength, but Saddam's remarks fit equally well into F. Gregory Gause's argument that the Iraqi dictator feared an absolute loss of his regime to external conspirators.