Advertisement

Caveats: A Case of What?

  • Gunnar FermannEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Initially, caveats was defined as national reservations on the use of force in coalition operations. To prepare for empirical research on the politics of caveats, the phenomenon of caveats requires further conceptual clarification. To distinguish the empirical footprint of caveats from adjacent phenomena easily confused as caveats, we ask what caveats might be a case of. In this generalizing move, caveats become a phenomenon with theoretical and typological context. To make an informed decision on how caveats are to be defined, operationalized, and categorized, we also need to know what caveats might be a subclass of itself. Caveats are discussed in four analytical contexts: First, in a foreign policy-making decision-tree distinguish the decision to apply caveats from the initial decisions as to whether and how to participate in the coalition. Second, as one of several foreign policy-making instruments available in statecraft. Third, as one of several constraints on the use of force in foreign policy. Finally, caveats are contextualized as one of several means available for political principals to control military agents in the theater of war.

Keywords

Foreign policy instrument Decision-tree Operational restrictions Use of force Civil–military relations Principal-agent theory 

References

  1. Auerswald, D. P., & Saideman, S. M. (2014). NATO in Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Fermann, G. (Ed.). (2013). Utenrikspolitikk og norsk krisehåndtering. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademika.Google Scholar
  3. George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Holsti, K. J. (1995). International Politics: Framework for Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Huntington, S. P. (1957). The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil–Military Relations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  6. Jakobsen, P. V. (2006). Nordic Approaches to Peace Operations: A New Model in the Making? Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, J. L. (2004). Prague to Istanbul: Ambition Versus Reality. Global Security: A Broader Concept for the 21st Century. Center for Strategic Decision Research 21st International Workshop on Global Security—Berlin, 7–10 May. http://csdr.org/2004book/Gen_Jones.htm.
  8. Ku, C., & Jacobson, H. K. (2003). Broaching the Issues. In C. Ku & H. K. Jacobson (Eds.), Democratic Accountability and the Use of Force in International Law (pp. 3–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986. The American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mello, P. A. (2015). Constitutional and Political Restrictions on the Use of Force: A Comparative Analysis of Prevalent Regulations and Their Evolution Over Time. Paper, International Studies Association’s 55th Annual Convention, Toronto, 26–29 March.Google Scholar
  11. Morgan, T. C., & Campbell, S. H. (1991). Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: So Why Kant Democracies Fight? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35(2), 187–211.Google Scholar
  12. Nolte, G. (Ed.). (2003). European Military Law Systems. Berlin: Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Peters, D., & Wagner, W. (2011). Between Military Efficiency and Democratic Legitimacy: Mapping Parliamentary War Powers in Contemporary Democracies, 1989–2004. Parliamentary Affairs, 64(1), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Platt, J. (2007). Case Study. In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology (pp. 102–127). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reiter, D., & Stam, A. C. (2002). Democracies at War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Snyder, G. G. (1984). The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics. World Politics, 36(4), 461–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations