Identifying `Rogue' States and Testing their Interstate Conflict Behavior

Abstract

We explore and define the concept of a 'rogue' state based on a state's domestic patterns of behavior. We combine measures of domestic gender equality, ethnic discrimination and state repression to identify characteristics of rogue states. Once we have identified rogue states, we perform logistic regression to predict whether rogue states are more likely to be the aggressors during international disputes -whether they are more likely to use force first during interstate conflict, controlling for other possible causes of state use of force. This research adds to a growing body of scholarship in International Relations regarding the behavior of states involved in conflict, which demonstrates that states with higher levels of inequality, repression and violence exhibit higher levels of violence during international disputes and during international crises. This argument is most fully developed within feminist scholarship; however, research in the field of ethnopolitical conflict has also highlighted the negative impact of domestic discrimination and violence on state behavior at the international level.

Russia’s Arlington? The Federal Military Memorial Cemetery near Moscow

“…Whereas scholarship on the foreign policy behavior of authoritarian regimes postulates the existence of such a connection (Wilkenfeld 1973;Russett and Oneal 2001;Caprioli and Trumbore 2003), our findings suggest otherwise. In post-Soviet Eurasia three anomalies-Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan-apparently contradict the assumption that a 1 These are the fifteen independent republics that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union, minus the three Baltic States, which were incorporated into USSR after World War II and followed a liberal democratic course after recovering their sovereignty in 1991, joining NATO in 1999 andthe EU in 2004. regime's violent behavior towards its own population translates into more bellicose foreign policy.…”

“…The Rogue State Index developed by Caprioli and Trumbore (2003) for measuring domestic state violence is based on an assessment of two important features of state violence-discrimination and repression. Yet relying on gender inequality as evidence of discrimination is not entirely relevant for evaluating state violence in post-Soviet contexts.…”

Human Rights Rogues in Interstate Disputes, 1980–2001

“…Although rogue states, those exhibiting all three components of the Rogue State Index we develop, represent about one-third of all states for any given year during the period we study, those rogue states collectively account for 60% of all violent conflicts during that period. Furthermore, our earlier research (Caprioli & Trumbore, 2003b) shows that once involved in a militarized interstate dispute, human rights rogues are more likely to be the first to use force compared to nonrogues. Perhaps policymakers, in their desire to confront rogue states and thus promote international peace and stability, should turn their attention toward the concrete dangers represented by the serial human rights abusers of the world.…”

“…However, we have elsewhere (Caprioli & Trumbore, 2003b) shown that states with specific domestic patterns of systematic discrimination on the basis of gender and ethnicity and general repressiveness -states we label human rights rogues -are more likely to engage in violence when involved in international disputes, specifically by using force and doing so first. If human rights rogues are also more likely to become involved in international disputes than other states, then this finding takes on added significance.…”

Replicating of Domestic Security Policy in Malaysian Foreign Policy

“…For example, Caprioli and Trumbore (2003) argue that domestic norms of discrimination, violence and inequality in domestic spheres of countries lead to a state's increased proneness to use force first when involved in an interstate dispute. By referring to statistical evidence, they explain that there are significant connections between domestic patterns of behaviour and state behaviour at the international level.…”