1. John Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 15, No. 1, Summer 1990, p. 52; Stephen Van Evera, “Primed for Peace: Europe After the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 15, No. 3, Winter 1990/91, pp. 49-50; Christopher Layne, “The Unipolar Illusion: Why New Great Powers Will Rise,” International Security, Vol. 17, No. 4, Spring 1993, p. 42.
2. Rebecca R. Moore, NATO’s New Mission: Projecting Stability in a Post-Cold War World, Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2007, pp. ix-x, 1-2.
3. “Rome Declaration on Peace and Cooperation,” NATO Press Communiqué S-1(91)86, November 8, 1991, avail-able from www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c911108a.htm.
4. Moore, pp. 16-18, 22-23.
5. U.S. Department of Defense, “United States Security Strategy for Europe and NATO,” Washington, DC: Office of International Security Affairs, June 1995, available from www.dod.gov/publs/europe/index.htm#pre.
6. U.S. Department of Defense, “DoD Issues Strategy Report for Europe and NATO,” Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs, No. 309.95, June 7, 1995, available from www.defenselink.mil/releases/
release.aspx?releaseid=513.
7. Moore, pp. 27, 56-61.
8. Ibid., pp. 75-83. The seven nations invited to join NATO were Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia; they formally joined the Alliance in 2004.
9. “Bucharest Summit Declaration,” NATO Press Communiqué, April 3, 2008, available from www.nato.int/cps/en/
natolive/official_texts_8443.htm. Albania and Croatia formally became members of the Alliance in 2009.
10. Jeremy M. Sharp, The Middle East Partnership Initiative: An Overview, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RS21457, February 8, 2005, pp. 1-6.
11. George W. Bush, Decision Points, New York: Crown Publishers, 2010, pp. 194-197, 205-207.
12. “Joint Statement on Afghanistan: Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Pu-tin on Afghanistan,” Washington, DC: The White House, November 13, 2001, available from georgewbush-whitehouse.
archives.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-9.html; Adam Bennett, ed., Reconstructing Afghanistan, Washington, DC:
International Monetary Fund Publication Services, 2005, p. 1.
13. Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Post-Saddam Governance and Security, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RL31339, August 31, 2009, pp. 9-11.
14. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Keynote Address at the National Democratic Institute’s 2011 De-mocracy Awards Dinner,” Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, Washington, DC, November 7, 2011, available from www.
state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/11/176750.htm.
15. Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 51, No. 4, Autumn 1997, pp. 513-523; Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997, pp. 19, 208-211; Mark W. Zacher and Richard A. Matthew,
“Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands,” in Charles W. Kegley Jr., ed., Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learn-ing, 1995, pp. 117-120.
16. Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” 1795, available from www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/in-trel/kant/kant1.htm. Kant argued it was possible for democracies based on a republican form of government to create a state of peace among themselves, and outlined the necessary conditions for this zone, or state, of “perpetual peace among states.”
17. Robert A. Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971, pp. 1-8.
18. “Politics: Indirect and direct democracy,” available from www.swissworld.org/en/politics/peoples_rights/indirect_
and_direct_democracy.
19. David C. Jordan, Drug Politics: Dirty Money and Democracies, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999, pp. 4-7, 21, 74-76, 120-137, 142, 158-159. Jordan analyzes the intersection of organized crime, drug trafficking, the globalized financial system, and government corruption and how this weakens democracy. He specifically studies Russia, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Mexico.
20. John M. Owen, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2, Autumn 1994, pp. 89, 95-96, 99, 102; Doyle, pp. 206-207.
21. Moravcsik, pp. 515, 524, 533-534.
22. Ibid., pp. 515, 525-528.
23. John Mueller, Quiet Cataclysm: Reflections on the Recent Transformation of World Politics, New York: HarperCol-lins College Publishers, 1995, pp. 125-129.
24. Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-versity Press, 1993, pp. 30-41, 129.
25. Thomas Risse-Kappen, “Collective Identity in a Democratic Community: The Case of NATO,” in Peter J. Kat-zenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 366-371. It should be noted that Risse-Kappen characterizes his argument as a constructivist interpre-tation of liberal theory.
26. Moravcsik, pp. 515, 524, 528-530.
27. Michael Howard, War and the Liberal Conscience, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1989, pp. 19-20.
28. Doyle, pp. 230-237.
29. Howard, pp. 41-43.
30. Richard Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World, New York: Basic Books, 1986, pp. 24-25.
31. Howard, pp. 20, 36-39.
32. Zacher and Matthew, pp. 114-115.
33. Philip J. Haythornthwaite, The World War One Source Book, London, UK: Arms and Armour Press, 1992, p. 14.
34. John Keegan, The First World War, London, UK: Hutchinson, 1998, pp. 10-17; Philippe Legrain, Open World: The Truth About Globalization, Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 2004, pp. 90-95.
35. Bruce Russett and John Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, p. 278.
36. Moravcsik, pp. 515, 530-532.
37. Kant, pp. 3-5.
38. Moravcsik, p. 531.
39. Russett, pp. 38-40.
40. Charles Lipson, Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-sity Press, 2003, pp. 4-7, 47-48, 51-54, 77; James Fearon, “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of Interna-tional Disputes,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 3, September, 1994, pp. 577-587; Kenneth A. Schultz, Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 1-8, 54-67, 231-235. Lipson, Fearon, and Schultz present their arguments as Rational Choice theories, but since their arguments are based on the assumption that regime type and domestic political institutions matter in explaining state behavior, I have categorized them as liberal theories that utilize the rational choice methodology.
41. Risse-Kappen, p. 366.
42. Doyle, pp. 226-228; Howard, pp. 31-35.
43. Doyle, pp. 241-250, 300.
44. Owen, pp. 90-102.
45. Randall L. Schweller, “Domestic Structure and Preventive War: Are Democracies More Pacific?” World Politics, Vol. 44, No. 2, January 1992, pp. 236-238, 248-252.
46. Lars-Erik Cederman, “Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace as a Macrohistorical Learning Pro-cess,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 1, March 2001, pp. 15-19, 28-29.
47. Russett and Oneal, pp. 29-42, 271-281.
48. Mark L. Haas, The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789-1989, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 4-18, 38-39, 179-181, 194-205, 211-213.
49. Lipson, pp. 1, 18.
50. Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005, p. 38.
51. Mearsheimer, pp. 50-51.
52. Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991, pp. 13-26.
53. Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2011: The Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy,” Press Release, January 13, 2011, available from freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1310.
54. Lipson, p. 21.
55. Howard, pp. 17-19.
56. Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South Amer-ica, and Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996, pp. 3-15. Linz and Stepan argue that a consolidated democracy has five attributes: civil society, political society, rule of law, state bureaucracy, and institutionalized economic society. Furthermore, they argue that citizens and political leaders must internalize the values and habits of liberal democracy. In a consolidated democracy, democracy is the “only game in town.”
57. Huntington, pp. 15-25.
CHAPTER 14
REGIONAL STUDIES IN A GLOBAL AGE