A revolution of democratic warfare? Assessing regime type and capability-based explanations of military transformation processes1
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Author | Simon Ruhnke,Mischa Hansel |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702017724806 |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
Scholarly Essay
A revolution of
democratic warfare?
Assessing regime type
and capability-based
explanations of military
transformation
processes
1
Mischa Hansel
Assistant Professor (Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter),
RWTH Aachen University, Institute for Political Science,
Germany
Simon Ruhnke
PhD-student, University of Cologne, Institute for Political Science
and European Affairs, Cologne, Germany
Abstract
Armament policies are determined by domestic rather than international politics
according to liberal IR perspectives. More specifically, military transformation processes
in democratic countries are understood as being informed by the political need to limit
the number of casualties during military operations. Consequently, liberal scholars
assume a distinct democratic eagerness to resort to precision-guided munitions,
drones, or even cyber attacks. Our analysis challenges this explanation of democratic
armament policies. We evaluate the timing and programmatic choices of armament
International Journal
2017, Vol. 72(3) 356–379
!The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020702017724806
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
1. Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at the 55th International Studies Association
Annual Convention in Toronto, the 4th Global International Studies Conference in Frankfurt, and
the 8th European Consortium for Political Research General Conference in Glasgow. We thank all
panellists for fruitful discussions and many helpful suggestions. Our particular thanks go to Moritz
Weiss, Ulrike Franke, Gary Schaub, Holger Janusch, Marc DeVore, Paul Holtom, Nergiz O
¨zkural,
Nicholas Marsh, Frank Sauer and Niklas Scho
¨rnig. Also, we are thankful for receiving a research
grant from Deutsche Stiftung Friedensforschung (German foundation for peace research) in sup-
port of a larger follow-up study on military transformation processes.
Corresponding author:
Simon Ruhnke, Universita
¨tzuKo
¨ln Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakulta
¨t, Department of
Political Science, Gottfried-Keller-Str. 6, Ko
¨ln 50923, Germany.
Email: simon.ruhnke@gmail.com
policies of 33 countries, democratic and non-democratic, combining different indicators
of information technology procurement and usage by national militaries. Based on this
data, countries are categorized into Revolution in Military Affairs leaders, uppers, fol-
lowers, stragglers, entrants, and non-participants. Finally, we test the explanatory power
of two competing independent variables, representing casualty shyness versus capabil-
ity-based explanations of military transformation processes. Our results show that
realist assumptions yield strong correlations, while liberal assumptions do not produce
statistically significant results.
Keywords
Revolution in Military Affairs, realism, liberalism, military procurement, democratic
warfare
Introduction
Armament policies can be explained in different terms based on different theoret-
ical readings. This paper tests two competing arguments in order to enhance our
overall understanding of the drivers of the ‘‘Revolution in Military Affairs’’
(RMA). According to liberal International Relations (IR) perspectives, armament
policy decisions are determined by domestic rather than international politics.
2
This general argument is elaborated on in the literature about democratic distinct-
iveness in defence policy and warfare.
3
One of the main arguments in this body of
literature is that democratic decision-makers and defence-planners, facing the chal-
lenge of casualty-averse publics, will develop strong preferences for risk-minimizing
stand-off and precision weaponry.
4
From this point of view, it is only logical that
2. See, for example, Isaac M. Castellano, ‘‘Kantian peace extended: Liberal influences and military
spending’’ (dissertation, Political Science, University of Kentucky, 2014), http://uknowledge.-
uky.edu/polysci_etds/4 (accessed 31 July 2015); Benjamin O. Fordham and Thomas C. Walker,
‘‘Kantian liberalism, regime type, and military resource allocation: Do democracies spend less?’’
International Studies Quarterly 4, no. 1 (2005): 141–157; Scott D. Sagan, ‘‘Why do states build
nuclear weapons? Three models in search of a bomb,’’ International Security 21, no. 3 (1996/1997):
63–73; Kenneth R. Mayer and Anne M. Khademian, ‘‘Bringing politics back in: Defense policy and
the theoretical study of institutions and processes,’’ Public Administration Review 56, no. 2 (1996):
180–190; Matthew Evangelista, ‘‘Cooperation theory and disarmament negotiations in the 1950s,’’
World Politics 42, no. 4 (1990): 502–528.
3. See, amongst others, Patrick A. Mello, Democratic Participation in Armed Conflict: Military
Involvement in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014); Anna
Geis, Harald Mu
¨ller and Niklas Scho
¨rnig, eds., The Militant Face of Democracy: Liberal Forces
for Good (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Wolfgang Wagner and Anna Geis, ‘‘How
far is it from Ko
¨nigsberg to Kandahar? Democratic peace and democratic violence in international
relations,’’ Review of International Studies 37, no. 4 (2011): 1555–1577; Anna Geis, Lothar Brock
and Harald Mu
¨ller, eds., Democratic Wars: Looking at the Dark Side of the Democratic Peace
(Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006); Allan C. Stam and Dan Reiter, Democracies at War
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).
4. Niklas Scho
¨rnig, ‘‘Liberal preferences as an explanation for technology choices: The case of military
robots as a solution to the West’s casualty aversion,’’ in Maximilian Mayer, Mariana Carpes and
Ruth Knoblich, eds., The Global Politics of Science and Technology: Perspectives, Cases and
Hansel and Ruhnke 357
To continue reading
Request your trial