No abstract

In this article, the authors examine perceptions of the salience of the issue under dispute by both sender and target states and their impact on sanction outcomes. They find that both the sender's perception of the salience of the issue and the asymmetry in perception of issue salience between sender and target favoring sender states have significant and dramatic effects on sanctions outcomes. This finding suggests that how states perceive the issue(s) at dispute matters in determining the likelihood of sanctions success and adds to our understanding of what determines sanctions outcomes.

No abstract

AbstractSocial group conflict along regional, ethnic, linguistic, and religious cleavages is deeply embedded in the Canadian historical experience. Contemporary analyses, however, have deprecated the role of religion and religiosity in shaping Canadians' political attitudes. This analysis demonstrates that religion and religiosity are significant correlates of Canadian attitudes on moral issues, paralleling the pattern observed in the United States. It demonstrates that the religious cleavage has been a salient feature of Canadian politics for some time and considers whether the contemporary moral divide could serve as a portent of cultural-religious conflict in Canada if a “political entrepreneur” articulated an issue agenda linked to these religion-based differences.

In the United States, public support can play a crucial role in the decisions to initiate and terminate military action. Some scholars argue that the public holds “prudent” opinions regarding the use of the military—supporting efforts to stop aggression but not to engage in nation building. We argue that what seems like a “prudent” opinion may be driven more by the White House’s rhetoric. Experimental tests show that the rhetorical complexity has a more powerful impact on the respondent’s support for military action than the actual policy goal, although this result is substantially tempered by political awareness.