Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorLee, SungYong
dc.contributor.advisorKappmeier, Mariska
dc.contributor.advisorJohansson, Patrik
dc.contributor.advisorMcDonald, Jenny
dc.contributor.authorLeonard, Griffin Manawaroa
dc.date.available2018-12-17T20:06:40Z
dc.date.copyright2018
dc.identifier.citationLeonard, G. M. (2018). Presidential Statements and US use of Force (Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy). University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/8757en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/8757
dc.description.abstractStudies examining the relationship between the public statements political leaders use in times of international disputes and a state’s dispute behaviour have traditionally focused on hostile statements used by political leaders to deter or compel adversaries. This ignores the reality that political leaders often use both conciliatory and hostile statements in the context of disputes and limits our understanding of how these different types of statements may have differing effects on the policies that a state employs in engaging its adversaries. It also obscures the possibility that theory linking the hostile statements of political leaders to their states’ dispute behaviour is equally applicable to conciliatory statements; the prevailing focus on hostile statements stems from scholarly convention rather than theoretical principle. This thesis represents one of the first attempts to systematically collect data on the conciliatory statements used by US presidents during international disputes. In early chapters I highlight the omission of conciliatory statements from foregoing analyses. I demonstrate that the logical extension of much of the theory and empirical evidence present in the relevant literature is to hypothesise that conciliatory statements made by political leaders in the context of disputes will be negatively associated with that leader’s state using armed force against its dispute adversaries. I also hypothesise that the more the balance of conciliatory and hostile statements used by a political leader favours conciliatory statements, the lesser the odds that the state in question will use armed force against its adversaries. Later chapters are dedicated to explaining my methodological approach and empirical findings. Using McManus’ (2014) dataset of 272 dyadic militarised interstate disputes involving the US between 1950-2010, I employ inferential statistics to test the relationships between the frequency of hostile presidential statements, conciliatory presidential statements and the use of armed force by the US. The first finding of this analysis is that conciliatory statements made by US presidents do not have a statistically significant relationship with the US’ use of force against its adversaries. This is an interesting finding, given that existing theory would suggest that conciliatory statements should be negatively correlated with the US using armed force. The second finding demonstrates that the balance of conciliatory and hostile statements shares a statistically significant relationship with the use of armed force by the US. The greater the proportion of presidential speech about a dispute accounted for by conciliatory statements, relative to the proportion of speech accounted for by hostile statements, the lower the odds of the US using armed force against its adversary. In concluding I discuss the above findings, highlighting how they relate to existing theory. I also consider potential avenues for future research. Finally, I reiterate the main contributions that this thesis makes to existing literature. The data collected herein are the first systematically collected on US presidents’ use of conciliatory statements in dispute settings. This data enables the first statistical analysis of whether variation in the frequency of conciliatory and hostile statements made by US presidents in dispute settings has an independent effect on the use of armed force by the US against its dispute adversaries.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of Otago
dc.rightsAll items in OUR Archive are provided for private study and research purposes and are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.
dc.subjectUS foreign policy
dc.subjectPresidential rhetoric
dc.subjectArmed Force
dc.subjectMilitarised disputes
dc.subjectConciliatory statements
dc.subjectHostile statements
dc.titlePresidential Statements and US use of Force
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.updated2018-12-17T02:56:59Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
thesis.degree.disciplineNational Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophy
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Otago
thesis.degree.levelDoctoral
otago.openaccessOpen
 Find in your library

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record