Democratic ‘transitions’ in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and South Africa, often studied under the conceptual rubric of ‘transitional justice’, have involved the formation of public policies toward the past that are multifaceted and often ambitious. Recent scholarship rarely questions the concepts and categories transposed from one country to another. This is true both in the language of political life and in the social sciences examining past-oriented public policy, especially policy toward ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the line between the language of political practice, legal analysis, and scholarly discourse has been quite porous. This book examines how these phenomena have been described and understood by focusing recent processes, such as the advent of international criminal justice, in relation to previous postwar and recent purges. By crossing disciplinary approaches and periods, the authors pay attention to three main aspects: the legal or political concepts used (and/or the ones mobilized in the academic work); the circulation of categories, know-how, and arguments; the different levels that can shed light on transitions.

Why do some autocratic leaders pursue aggressive or expansionist foreign policies, while others are much more cautious in their use of military force? The first book to focus systematically on the foreign policy of different types of authoritarian regimes, Dictators at War and Peace breaks new ground in our understanding of the international behavior of dictators. Jessica L. P. Weeks explains why certain kinds of regimes are less likely to resort to war than others, why some are more likely to win the wars they start, and why some authoritarian leaders face domestic punishment for foreign policy failures whereas others can weather all but the most serious military defeat. Using novel cross-national data, Weeks looks at various nondemocratic regimes, including those of Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin; the Argentine junta at the time of the Falklands War, the military government in Japan before and during World War II, and the North Vietnamese communist regime. She finds that the differences in the conflict behavior of distinct kinds of autocracies are as great as those between democracies and dictatorships. Indeed, some types of autocracies are no more belligerent or reckless than democracies, casting doubt on the common view that democracies are more selective about war than autocracies.

Bachelor Thesis from the year 2018 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 2,0, University of Constance, language: English, abstract: This study investigates whether there is a significant impact of different authoritarian regimes, namely personalist and nonpersonalist civilian autocracies as well as their respective military counterparts, on the termination of civil war. The paper suggests that in civil wars those regimes that function on a civilian basis have an advantage in co-opting their opponents to reach a settlement of the conflict. Furthermore, military leaders are expected to be less reluctant towards the use of force than civilian ones which should make them more likely to win civil wars. The same applies to personalist dictators who are hypothesised to view the state as their own and are inclined to forcefully defend their achievements. Several multinomial logit models are tested for the time period between 1946 and 2010. The average predicted probabilities show that personalist civilian regimes indeed are more likely to reach a settlement than other types. Nonpersonalist civilian dictatorships are correctly hypothesised to least likely win an intra-state war, whereas personalist military leaders do so with a comparatively high probability.

First Published in 1992. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company. We can define war as organised fighting between groups of individuals belonging to the same species but occupying distinct territories, thus distinguishing war from fights between isolated individuals as well as from struggles between groups living intermingled within the same territory, which can be classified as rebellions, revolutions, riots and so on.The articles included in this volume were written in the 1970s and 1980s and published in very diverse journals and proceedings of conferences, in one case only in German.

Explains how dictatorships rise, survive, and fall, along with why some but not all dictators wield vast powers.

What are the causes of war? Wars are generally begun by a revisionist state seeking to take territory. The psychological root of revisionism is the yearning for glory, honor and power. Human nature is the primary cause of war, but political regimes can temper or intensify these passions. This book examines the effects of six types of regime on foreign policy: monarchy, republic and sultanistic, charismatic, and military and totalitarian dictatorship. Dictatorships encourage and unleash human ambition, and are thus the governments most likely to begin ill-considered wars. Classical realism, modified to incorporate the impact of regimes and beliefs, provides a more convincing explanation of war than neo-realism. John David Orme is Professor of Politics at Oglethorpe University, USA, and author of The Paradox of Peace; Deterrence, Reputation and Cold-War Cycles; and Political Instability and American Foreign Policy.