Dados Bibliográficos

AUTOR(ES) Peter D. Feaver
AFILIAÇÃO(ÕES) Duke University, .
ANO 1996
TIPO Artigo
PERIÓDICO Armed Forces and Society
ISSN 0095-327X
E-ISSN 1556-0848
EDITORA Annual Reviews (United States)
DOI 10.1177/0095327x9602300203
CITAÇÕES 34
ADICIONADO EM 2025-08-18
MD5 856896b03c1f8b52110086377378e977

Resumo

The alleged crisis in American civil-military relations has revived a long-standing theoretical debate about the determinants of civilian control. So far, the debate has followed lines of analysis laid by the original dispute between Samuel Huntington and Morris Janowitz. Viewed from a post-Cold War perspective, however, neither model is attractive. In this article, I define the basic problematique both the Huntingtonian and Janowitzean theories attempt to explain: how to reconcile a military strong enough to do anything the civilians ask them to with a military subordinate enough to do only what civilians authorize them to do. Next I critically evaluate and call into question the continued validity of key propositions of each theory and especially their reliance on 'professionalism.' The article concludes with a brief summary of the criteria that should guide the development of a new theory of civilian control.

Ferramentas