Identifying `Rogue' States and Testing their Interstate Conflict Behavior
| Author | Mary Caprioli,Peter F. Trumbore |
| Published date | 01 September 2003 |
| Date | 01 September 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13540661030093002 |
| Subject Matter | Journal Article |
Identifying âRogueâ States and Testing
their Interstate ConïŹict Behavior
MARY CAPRIOLI and PETER F. TRUMBORE
University of Tennessee, USA and Oakland University, USA
We explore and deïŹne the concept of a ârogueâ state based on a stateâs
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 identiïŹed rogue states, we
perform logistic regression to predict whether rogue states are more
likely to be the aggressors during international disputes â whether
they are more likely to use force ïŹrst during interstate conïŹict,
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 conïŹict, which demon-
strates 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 ïŹeld of ethno-
political conïŹict has also highlighted the negative impact of domestic
discrimination and violence on state behavior at the international
level.
K
EY
W
ORDS
âŠdiscrimination âŠinequality âŠinternational conïŹict âŠ
repression âŠrogue states
Introduction
The term ârogue stateâ has become part of the popular language of foreign
policy and international relations. This phrase has been used to characterize
states whose external behavior runs afoul of the standards of the inter-
national community, typically through actions such as developing weapons
of mass destruction or sponsoring terrorism (Henriksen, 2001; Klare, 1995;
Litwak, 2001; Tanter, 1998), or through conspicuous ïŹouting of inter-
national law (Chomsky, 2000). More often than not, this description has
European Journal of International Relations Copyright © 2003
SAGE Publications and ECPR-European Consortium for Political Research, Vol. 9(3): 377â406
[1354â0661 (200309) 9:3; 377â406; 035040]
been used to label states that oppose the dominant powers in the
international system (George, 1993), particularly the United States (Litwak,
2000). Such states are often characterized as despotic dictatorships (Tanter,
1998) and are perceived as being undeterrable and unpredictable (Rubin,
1999) or âcrazyâ (Dror, 1971).
Critics of the rogue state appellation have persuasively argued that the
politicization of the term has rendered it bankrupt as an analytical category
(Litwak, 2000; OâSullivan, 2000). With no clear criterion as to what
constitutes membership in this dubious club, a ârogue stateâ is essentially
whoever the United States says it is (Litwak, 2000). To bring some rigor to
the concept and make it useful as an analytical category, we propose
returning to an earlier conceptualization of the rogue state, one rooted in
the liberal tradition of political thought enshrined in the âUniversal
Declaration modelâ of international human rights (Donnelly, 1989, 1998,
2001; Nickel, 1987). In this conception, rogue state status derives not from
external actions that challenge the systemic status quo or violate inter-
national norms of non-proliferation or support for terrorism, but rather
from a regimeâs domestic behavior, how it treats its citizens. As Litwak
points out (2000: 49â51), this was the prevailing sense of the term in both
academic and policy circles prior to the 1980s.
In the current policy arena, rogue states have been identiïŹed ad hoc after
such a state establishes a history of international aggression or otherwise
troublesome international behavior. We argue that it is possible to identify
rogue states prior to aggressive international behavior based on domestic
characteristics of state repression and domestic inequality. While earlier
deïŹnitions of rogue or pariah states made general reference to states which
were guilty of âbrutal internal repression,â such as Pol Potâs Cambodia or Idi
Aminâs Uganda (Litwak, 2000: 50), we offer a more speciïŹc deïŹnition based
on those recognized international norms of human rights that have been
identiïŹed by Frost (1996) as among the âsettled normsâ of contemporary
international society.
In keeping with the Universal Declaration modelâs emphasis on the rights
of individuals to equal concern and respect, and the responsibility of states
for implementing those rights (Donnelly, 2001: 1), we propose that rogue
states are any states that systematically allow domestic discrimination and
inequality on the basis of ethnicity and gender, and perpetrate systematic
repression against their own citizens.1The relationship between the rights of
individuals and the obligation of states is an explicit component of
international law:
The right to equality and the principle of non-discrimination is the foundation
of international human rights law. . . . Where governments are responsible for
any form of discrimination, they are under an obligation imposed by
European Journal of International Relations 9(3)
378
To continue reading
Request your trial