Rhetoric versus Reality

Rogue States in Interstate Conflict

Bibliographic Data

ID6284284
AuthorsMary Caprioli (University of Minnesota), Peter F Trumbore (Oakland University)
Year2005
Volume49
Issue5
Pages770-791
Publication date2005-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Conflict Resolution (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-0027 • E-ISSN: 1552-8766
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0022002705279335
OpenAlexW2023148377
LanguageEN
Citations received21
References cited37

The term rogue statehas become part of the common language of American foreign policy, and the assumptions made by policy makers about the international conduct of these actors—that they represent aggressive threats to international peace and security—have become entrenched at the center of U.S. foreign and defense policies. The central assumption of rogue state aggressiveness, however, has not been empirically tested. This project fills that gap. The authors first identify those states that, since 1980, have consistently been described as rogues by policy makers, as well as other states that evince the objective characteristics said to qualify a state for rogue status. Whenthe authors examine these states'interstate conflict behavior as a group, they find that they are no more likely to become involved in militarized interstate disputes, no more likely to initiate militarized action, and no more likely to use force first than nonrogue states

Action (physics · Foreign policy · International conflict · International law · International relations · Law and economics · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Rhetoric · Sociology · State (computer science · Use of force · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Political Conflict and Governance

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub