Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Autokratisierung und internationale Politik

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbuch Internationale Beziehungen

  • 324 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Das Kapitel fasst die Forschungsliteratur zur Rolle der autoritären Staaten in der internationalen Politik zusammen. Es werden insbesondere zwei Themenkomplexe behandelt. Erstens analysiert das Kapitel, inwieweit es systematische Unterschiede in der Außenpolitik der autoritären und der demokratischen Staaten gibt. Dabei stehen Konflikt- und Kooperationsbereitschaft der autoritären Staaten, sowie die Legitimität ihrer Handlungen im Vordergrund. Zweitens wird die große Literatur zur Autokratieförderung und zur Diffusion der autoritären Herrschaft kritisch zusammengefasst. Es wird insbesondere auf den Einfluss der autoritären Staaten auf die Gestaltung von regionalen und globalen Ordnungen eingegangen. Das Kapitel schließt mit einer Diskussion des potenziellen Systemwettbewerbs zwischen Autokratien und Demokratien in der modernen Welt ab.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Im Weiteren werden die Begriffe „autoritär“ und „autokratisch“ als Synonyme verwendet.

  2. 2.

    Glasius (2018a) schlägt deswegen vor, von der Diskussion der autoritären Regime abzusehen und über autoritäre Praktiken zu sprechen, die sie mit einer Reduktion der Accountability verbindet. Solche Praktiken müssen nicht unbedingt auf einen nationalen Rahmen begrenzt werden und beziehen sich sehr oft auf Bevölkerungsgruppen jenseits nationaler Grenzen bzw. auf die internationale Bevölkerungsmobilität (Glasius 2018b; Dalmasso et al. 2018; Tsourapas 2021).

  3. 3.

    Neben dieser dyadischen Formulierung gibt es auch weitere: den monadischen demokratischen Frieden (Demokratien führen weniger Kriege als Autokratien) und den systemischen demokratischen Frieden (das von Demokratien dominierte System ist friedlicher als ein System, in dem die Autokratien die zentrale Rolle spielen).

  4. 4.

    Unter „audience costs“ versteht man die Risiken für Politikerinnen und Politiker, von der Bevölkerung (oder von den einflussreichen Interessengruppen) bestraft zu werden, falls sie ihre Versprechen brechen. In der Demokratie würde die Bevölkerung die Partei abwählen, die zunächst eine internationale Krise eskaliert, und dann nicht konsequent handelt bzw. zurückzieht. Deswegen wird in den Demokratien deutlich vorsichtiger mit Entscheidungen umgegangen, die zur Eskalation führen können.

  5. 5.

    Die Verbreitung des Bolivarianismus konnte potenziell zu der Herausbildung von einem ähnlichen Cluster der autoritären Regime führen (De La Torre 2017). Ob die Verbündeten von Hugo Chavez tatsächlich die Schwelle zum Autoritarismus überschritten haben (oder lediglich populistische Regime mit gewissen autoritären Tendenzen blieben) ist unklar. Die tiefe Wirtschaftskrise in Venezuela in den 2010er-Jahren macht die weitere Verbreitung des Modells äußerst unwahrscheinlich.

  6. 6.

    In einigen Regionen kann die Ähnlichkeit auch durch die gemeinsame Vergangenheit (etwa die koloniale oder die sozialistische Vergangenheit) entstehen; dann ist die Situation für die Forschung besonders schwierig, weil diese Vergangenheit oft auch die Interaktion zwischen den Eliten und den Autokraten einzelner Staaten fördert und es deswegen kaum möglich ist festzustellen, ob und inwieweit das gegenseitige Lernen oder die Vergangenheit als solche zu Ähnlichkeiten von autoritären Regimen führen.

  7. 7.

    Lewis et al. (2018) betonen außerdem die spezifischen Modelle der Konfliktlösungen, die von autoritären Staaten entwickelt und durchgesetzt werden.

  8. 8.

    Interessant ist aus dieser Perspektive nicht nur die Forschung zu der autoritären Außenpolitik selbst, sondern auch die Forschung zu Ursachen der Wahrnehmung der autoritären Außenpolitik in demokratischen Staaten (vgl. Rogelja und Tsimonis 2020).

Literatur

  • Abushov, Kavus. 2009. Policing the near abroad: Russian foreign policy in the South Caucasus. Australian Journal of International Affairs 63(2): 187–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ademmer, Esther, Laure Delcour, Katharina Hoffmann, und Marta Jaroszewicz. 2021. Interdependences with external actors and regime persistence in Eastern Partnership countries. East European Politics 37(1): 89–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, Roy. 2008. Virtual regionalism, regional structures and regime security in Central Asia. Central Asian Survey 27(2): 185–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, Roy. 2013. Russia and Syria: Explaining alignment with a regime in crisis. International Affairs 89(4): 795–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, Roy. 2018. Protective integration and security policy coordination: Comparing the SCO and CSTO. Chinese Journal of International Politics 11(3): 297–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosio, Thomas. 2008. Catching the ‚Shanghai spirit‘: How the Shanghai Cooperation Organization promotes authoritarian norms in Central Asia. Europe-Asia Studies 60(8): 1321–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosio, Thomas. 2010. Constructing a framework of authoritarian diffusion: Concepts, dynamics, and future research. International Studies Perspectives 11(4): 375–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosio, Thomas. 2012. The rise of the ‚China Model‘ and ‚Beijing Consensus‘: Evidence of authoritarian diffusion? Contemporary Politics 18(4): 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosio, Thomas. 2014. Democratic states and authoritarian firewalls: America as a black knight in the uprising in Bahrain. Contemporary Politics 20(3): 331–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosio, Thomas. 2016. Authoritarian backlash: Russian resistance to democratization in the former Soviet Union. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosio, Thomas. 2018. Authoritarian norms in a changing international system. Politics and Governance 6(2): 120–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosio, Thomas, und Jakob Tolstrup. 2019. How do we tell authoritarian diffusion from illusion? Exploring methodological issues of qualitative research on authoritarian diffusion. Quality & Quantity 53(6): 2741–2763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Art, David. 2016. Archivists and adventurers: Research strategies for authoritarian regimes of the past and present. Social Science Quarterly 97(4): 974–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babayan, Nelli. 2015. The return of the empire? Russia’s counteraction to transatlantic democracy promotion in its near abroad. Democratization 22(3): 438–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, Julia. 2015. China, autocratic patron? An empirical investigation of China as a factor in autocratic survival. International Studies Quarterly 59(1): 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, Julia, Jörn Grävingholt, und Antja Kästner. 2010. Would autocracies promote autocracy? A political economy perspective on regime-type export in regional neighbourhoods. Contemporary Politics 16(1): 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bader, Max. 2014. Democracy promotion and authoritarian diffusion: The foreign origins of post-Soviet election laws. Europe-Asia Studies 66(8): 1350–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bak, Daehee. 2020. Autocratic political cycle and international conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science 37(3): 259–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bank, Andre. 2017. The study of authoritarian diffusion and cooperation: Comparative lessons on interests versus ideology, nowadays and in history. Democratization 24(7): 1345–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baracani, Elena, und Roberto Di Quirico, Hrsg. 2013. Alternatives to democracy. Florence: European Press Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barros, Robert. 2016. On the outside looking in: Secrecy and the study of authoritarian regimes. Social Science Quarterly 97(4): 953–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Martin. 2015. The end of regional Middle Eastern exceptionalism? The Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council after the Arab Uprisings. Democracy and Security 11(2): 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Mark, und Kai Quek. 2018. Authoritarian public opinion and the democratic peace. International Organization 72(1): 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bochtler, Paul. 2021. Authoritarian member states of the UN: Determinants of autocratic co-Sponsorship of draft resolutions as a signal of foreign policy coordination at the United Nations. Arbeitspapiere des Arbeitsbereichs Politik, Osteuropa-Institut, Freie Universität Berlin, AP84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, Tanja. 2015. The noble west and the dirty rest? Western democracy promoters and illiberal regional powers. Democratization 22(3): 519–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, Tanja, und Michael Zürn. 2020. Contestations of the liberal script. A research program. Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, Tanja, und Michael Zürn. 2021. Contestations of the liberal international order: From liberal multilateralism to postnational liberalism. International Organization 75(2): 282–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brand, Alexander, Susan McEwen-Fial, und Wolfgang Muno. 2015. An ‚authoritarian nexus‘? China’s alleged special relationship with autocratic states in Latin America. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 99:7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broich, Tobias. 2017. Do authoritarian regimes receive more Chinese development finance than democratic ones? Empirical evidence for Africa. China Economic Review 46:180–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownlee, Jason. 2017. The limited reach of authoritarian powers. Democratization 24(7): 1326–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnell, Peter, und Oliver Schlumberger. 2010. Promoting democracy–promoting autocracy? International politics and national political regimes. Contemporary Politics 16(1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder, Kent. 2012. The new continentalism. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, David, und Mitchell Orenstein. 2012. Post-soviet authoritarianism: The influence of Russia in its „near abroad“. Post-Soviet Affairs 28(1): 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Steve. 1997. In search of democratic peace: Problems and promise. Mershon International Studies Review 41(Supplement): 59–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Chen, und Rudra Sil. 2007. Stretching postcommunism: Diversity, context, and comparative historical analysis. Post-Soviet Affairs 23(4): 275–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Kathleen. 2009. Economic and security regionalism among patrimonial authoritarian regimes: The case of Central Asia. Europe-Asia Studies 61(2): 249–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, Alexander. 2015. Authoritarianism goes global: Countering democratic norms. Journal of Democracy 26(3): 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, Alexander, und John Heathershaw. 2017. Dictators without borders. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalmasso, Emanuela, Del Sordi, Glasius Adele, Hirt Marlies, Michaelsen Nicole, Mohammad Marcus, Mohammad Abdulkader, und Dana Moss. 2018. Intervention: Extraterritorial authoritarian power. Political Geography 64:95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torre, Carlos De la. 2017. Hugo Chávez and the diffusion of Bolivarianism. Democratization 24(7): 1271–1288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesquita, Bruce De, Morrow, James, Siverson, Randolph, und Alastair Smith. 1999. An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. American Political Science Review 93(4): 791–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debre, Maria. 2021a. Clubs of autocrats: Regional organizations and authoritarian survival. Review of International Organizations, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debre, Maria. 2021b. The dark side of regionalism: How regional organizations help authoritarian regimes to boost survival. Democratization 28(2): 394–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deibert, Ron. 2015. Authoritarianism goes global: Cyberspace under siege. Journal of Democracy 26(3): 64–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fawn, Rick. 2006. Battle over the box: International election observation missions, political competition and retrenchment in the post-Soviet space. International Affairs 82(6): 1133–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, James. 1994. Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review 88(3): 577–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferchen, Matt. 2013. Whose China model is it anyway? The contentious search for consensus. Review of International Political Economy 20(2): 390–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, Ekaterina, und Alexander Libman. 2015. Europeanization and the Eurasian Economic Union. In Eurasian integration – The view from within, Hrsg. Piotr Dutkiewicz und Richard Sakwa. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galeotti, Mark. 2016. ‚RepressIntern‘: Russia’s security cooperation with fellow authoritarians. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/repressintern-russian-security-cooperation-with-fellow-authoritarians/. Zugegriffen am 01.10.2021.

  • Gartzke, Eirk, und Kristian Gleditsch. 2004. Why democracies may actually be less reliable allies. American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 775–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaubatz, Kurt. 1996. Democratic states and commitment in international relations. International Organization 50(1): 109–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, Barbara. 1999. What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual Review of Political Science 2(1): 115–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, Tom. 2020. Authoritarian international law? American Journal of International Law 114(2): 221–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasius, Marlies. 2018a. What authoritarianism is… and is not: a practice perspective. International Affairs 94(3): 515–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasius, Marlies. 2018b. Extraterritorial authoritarian practices: A framework. Globalizations 15(2): 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowa, Joanne. 2011. The democratic peace after the Cold War. Economics and Politics 23(2): 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, Axel, und Jan Teorell. 2007. Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 18(1): 143–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Stephen, und Thomas Ambrosio. 2017. Authoritarian learning: A conceptual overview. East European Politics 33(2): 143–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hameiri, Shahar, und Lee Jones. 2018. China challenges global governance? Chinese international development finance and the AIIB. International Affairs 94(3): 573–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, Jarrod. 2012. The democratic peace and the new evolution of an old idea. European Journal of International Relations 18(4): 767–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, Kai, und Huiyun Feng. 2019. Leadership transition and global governance: Role conception, institutional balancing, and the AIIB. Chinese Journal of International Politics 12(2): 153–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heldt, Eugenia, und Henning Schmidtke. 2019. Global democracy in decline? How rising authoritarianism limits democratic control over international institutions. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 25(2): 231–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heydemann, Steven, und Reinoud Leenders. 2011. Authoritarian learning and authoritarian resilience: Regime responses to the ‚Arab Awakening‘. Globalizations 8(5): 647–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishiyama, John. 2018. Understanding the „gravity“ of authoritarianism: China, Russia, and authoritarian cooperation. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 14(1): 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishiyama, John, Ryan Conway, und Katherine Haggans. 2008. Is there a monadic authoritarian peace: Authoritarian regimes, democratic transition types and the first use of violent force. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations 2(3): 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, Jo, Tor Jakobsen, und Eirin Ekevold. 2016. Democratic peace and the norms of the public: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between regime type and citizens’ bellicosity, 1981–2008. Review of International Studies 42(5): 968–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Juliet, und Andrew Barnes. 2015. Financial nationalism and its international enablers: The Hungarian experience. Review of International Political Economy 22(3): 535–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Juliet, und Seckin Köstem. 2016. Frustrated leadership: Russia’s economic alternative to the West. Global Policy 7(2): 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, Robert. 2009. The return of history and the end of dreams. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamrava, Mehran. 2012. The Arab Spring and the Saudi-led counterrevolution. Orbis 56(1): 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, Judith. 2007. Who keeps international commitments and why? The International Criminal Court and bilateral nonsurrender agreements. American Political Science Review 101(3): 573–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall-Taylor, Andrea, und Erica Frantz. 2014. Mimicking democracy to prolong autocracies. Washington Quarterly 37(4): 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Scott. 2010. The myth of the Beijing Consensus. Journal of Contemporary China 19(65): 461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, Jaclyn. 2018. Information, security, and authoritarian stability: Internet policy diffusion and coordination in the former Soviet region. International Journal of Communication 12:3814–3834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneuer, Marianne, und Thomas Demmelhuber. 2016. Gravity centres of authoritarian rule: A conceptual approach. Democratization 23(5): 775–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneuer, Marianne, und Thomas Demmelhuber, Hrsg. 2020. Authoritarian gravity centers: A cross-regional study of authoritarian promotion and diffusion. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneuer, Marianne, Thomas Demmelhuber, Raphael Peresson, und Tobias Zumbrägel. 2019. Playing the regional card: Why and how authoritarian gravity centres exploit regional organisations. Third World Quarterly 40(3): 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, Pal. 2021. Authoritarian diffusion, or the geopolitics of self-interest? Evidence from Russia’s patron–client relations with Eurasia’s de facto states. Europe-Asia Studies 73(5): 890–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroenig, Matthew. 2020. The return of great power rivalry: Democracy versus autocracy from the ancient world to the US and China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kubicek, Paul. 2011. Are Central Asian leaders learning from upheavals in Kyrgyzstan? Journal of Eurasian Studies 2(2): 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, Brian, und Dan Reiter. 2000. Democracy, political similarity, and international alliances, 1816–1992. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44(2): 203–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankina, Tomila, Alexander Libman, und Anastassia Obydenkova. 2016. Authoritarian and democratic diffusion in post-communist regions. Comparative Political Studies 49(12): 1599–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeds, Brett. 1999. Domestic political institutions, credible commitments, and international cooperation. American Journal of Political Science 43(4): 979–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemon, Edward, und Oleg Antonov. 2020. Authoritarian legal harmonization in the post-Soviet space. Democratization 27(7): 1221–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, Steven, und Lucan Way. 2010. Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, David, John Heathershaw, und Nick Megoran. 2018. Illiberal peace? Authoritarian modes of conflict management. Cooperation and Conflict 53(4): 486–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libman, Alexander. 2007. Regionalisation and regionalism in the post-Soviet space: Current status and implications for institutional development. Europe-Asia Studies 59(3): 401–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libman, Alexander. 2017. Russian power politics and the Eurasian Economic Union: The real and the imagined. Rising Powers Quarterly 1(1): 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libman, Alexander, und Anastassia Obydenkova. 2013. Informal governance and participation in non-democratic international organizations. Review of International Organizations 8(2): 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libman, Alexander, und Anastassia Obydenkova. 2014. International trade as a limiting factor in democratization: An analysis of subnational regions in post-communist Russia. Studies in Comparative International Development 49(2): 168–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libman, Alexander, und Anastassia Obydenkova. 2018a. Regional international organizations as a strategy of autocracy: The Eurasian Economic Union and Russian foreign policy. International Affairs 94(5): 1037–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libman, Alexander, und Anastassia Obydenkova. 2018b. Understanding authoritarian regionalism. Journal of Democracy 29(4): 151–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libman, Alexander, und Evgeny Vinokurov. 2018. Autocracies and regional integration: The Eurasian case. Post-Communist Economies 30(3): 334–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libman, Alexander, und Evgeny Vinokurov. 2021. One Eurasia or many? Regional interconnections and connectivity projects on the Eurasian continent. Washington: George Washingtin University Central Asia Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libman, Alexander, Susan Stewart, und Kirsten Westphal. 2016. Mit Unterschieden umgehen: Die Rolle von Interdependenz in der Beziehung zu Russland. In Ausblick 2016: Begriffe und Realitäten internationaler Politik, Hrsg. Volker Perthes. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, James. 2017. The spread of authoritarian regimes in interwar Europe. Politics, Religion & Ideology 18(3): 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magued, Shaimaa. 2019. Authoritarianism and virtual regionalism: The Gulf Cooperation Council during Arab uprisings. Democracy and Security 15(2): 150–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, Edward, Helen Milner, und Peter Rosendorff. 2000. Free to trade: Democracies, autocracies, and international trade. American Political Science Review 94(2): 305–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, Edward, Helen Milner, und Peter Rosendorff. 2002. Why democracies cooperate more: Electoral control and international trade agreements. International Organization 56(3): 477–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Zeev, und Bruce Russett. 1993. Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review 87(3): 624–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark, James, Artemy Kalinovsky, und Steffi Marung, Hrsg. 2020. Alternative globalizations: Eastern Europe and the postcolonial world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattes, Michaela, und Mariana Rodríguez. 2014. Autocracies and international cooperation. International Studies Quarterly 58(3): 527–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, Ernest, und Philip Zelikow, Hrsg. 2007. Dealing with dictators: Dilemmas of U.S. diplomacy and intelligence analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melnykovska, Inna, Hedwig Plamper, und Rainer Schweickert. 2012. Do Russia and China promote autocracy in Central Asia? Asia Europe Journal 10(1): 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obydenkova, Anastassia, und Alexander Libman. 2012. The impact of external factors on regime transition: Lessons from the Russian regions. Post-Soviet Affairs 28(3): 346–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obydenkova, Anastassia, und Alexander Libman. 2014. Understanding the foreign policy of autocratic actors: ideology or pragmatism? Russia and the Tymoshenko trial as a case study. Contemporary Politics 20(3): 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obydenkova, Anastassia, und Alexander Libman, Hrsg. 2015. Autocratic and democratic external influences in post-Soviet Eurasia. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obydenkova, Anastassia, und Alexander Libman. 2019. Authoritarian regionalism in the world of international organizations: Global perspective and the Eurasian enigma. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Obydenkova, Anastassia, und Philippe Schmitter. 2020. „Real existing democracies“ and „real existing autocracies“: Their relation to regional integration and regional cooperation. Taiwan Journal of Democracy 16(1): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olar, Roman-Gabriel. 2019. Do they know something we don’t? Diffusion of repression in authoritarian regimes. Journal of Peace Research 56(5): 667–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, John. 2005. When do ideologies produce alliances? The Holy Roman Empire, 1517–1555. International Studies Quarterly 49(1): 73–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peceny, Mark, und Caroline Beer. 2003. Peaceful parties and puzzling personalists. American Political Science Review 97(2): 339–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peceny, Mark, und Christopher Butler. 2004. The conflict behavior of authoritarian regimes. International Politics 41(4): 565–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peceny, Mark, Caroline Beer, und Shannon Sanchez-Terry. 2002. Dictatorial peace? American Political Science Review 96(1): 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, Zhongzhou, und Sow Keat Tok. 2016. The AIIB and China’s normative power in international financial governance structure. Chinese Political Science Review 1(4): 736–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pepinsky, Thomas. 2014. The institutional turn in comparative authoritarianism. British Journal of Political Science 44(3): 631–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, J., und E. F. Kisangani. 2010. Diversionary despots? Comparing autocracies’ propensities to use and to benefit from military force. American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 477–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Sean. 2017. The Eurasian Economic Union: The geopolitics of authoritarian cooperation. Eurasian Geography and Economics 58(4): 418–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues Vieira, Vinicius. 2018. Who joins counter-hegemonic IGOs? Early and late members of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Research & Politics 5(2): 2053168018770031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelja, Igor, und Konstantinos Tsimonis. 2020. Narrating the China threat: Securitising Chinese economic presence in Europe. Chinese Journal of International Politics 13(1): 103–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, Alessandra. 2018. Regions in transition in the former soviet area. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, Alessandra, und Edward Stoddard. 2018. Why do authoritarian leaders do regionalism? Ontological security and Eurasian regional cooperation. International Spectator 53(3): 20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Sibony, Oscar. 2014. Red globalization: The political economy of the Soviet Cold War from Stalin to Khrushchev. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmotz, Alexander, und Oisin Tansey. 2018. Regional autocratic linkage and regime survival. European Journal of Political Research 57(3): 662–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, Gregory, und Henry Gao. 2020. A new Chinese economic order? Journal of International Economic Law 23(3): 607–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silitski, Vitali. 2010. „Survival of the fittest“: Domestic and international dimensions of the authoritarian reaction in the former Soviet Union following the colored revolutions. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 43(4): 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Michael, und Erik Gartzke. 1996. Political system similarity and the choice of allies: Do democracies flock together, or do opposites attract? Journal of Conflict Resolution 40(4): 617–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Socher, Johannes. 2021. Russia and the right to self-determination in the post-Soviet space. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Söderbaum, Fredrik. 2004. The political economy of regionalism: The case of southern Africa. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, Matthew, und David Skidmore. 2019. The AIIB in the liberal international order. Chinese Journal of International Politics 12(1): 61–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tansey, Oisin. 2016a. The problem with autocracy promotion. Democratization 23(1): 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tansey, Oisin. 2016b. International politics of authoritarian rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tansey, Oisin, Kevin Koehler, und Alexander Schmotz. 2017. Ties to the rest: Autocratic linkages and regime survival. Comparative Political Studies 50(9): 1221–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolstrup, Jakob. 2009. Studying a negative external actor: Russia’s management of stability and instability in the ‚Near Abroad‘. Democratization 16(5): 922–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolstrup, Jakob. 2015. Black knights and elections in authoritarian regimes: Why and how Russia supports authoritarian incumbents in post-Soviet states. European Journal of Political Research 54(4): 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsourapas, Gerasimos. 2021. Global autocracies: Strategies of transnational repression, legitimation, and co-optation in world politics. International Studies Review 23(3): 616–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bosch, Jeroen. 2020. Introducing regime cluster theory: Framing regional diffusion dynamics of democratization and autocracy promotion. International Journal of Political Theory 4(1): 74–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhill, Rachel. 2013. Promoting authoritarianism abroad. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinokurov, Evgeny. 2021. Interaction of Eurasian and international financial institutions. Post-Communist Economies 33(2–3): 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinokurov, Evgeny, und Alexander Libman. 2017. Re-evaluating regional organizations: Behind the smokescreen of official mandates. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hauff, Luba. 2020. China, the West, and democratization: The struggle for the local and the global in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Von Soest, Chistian. 2015. Democracy prevention: The international collaboration of authoritarian regimes. European Journal of Political Research 54(4): 623–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahman, Michael, Jan Teorell, und Axel Hadenius. 2013. Authoritarian regime types revisited: Updated data in comparative perspective. Contemporary Politics 19(1): 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wajner, Daniel, und Luis Roniger. 2019. Transnational identity politics in the Americas: Reshaping „Nuestramérica“ as Chavismo’s regional legitimation strategy. Latin American Research Review 54(2): 458–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Chistopher. 2016. The authoritarian threat: The hijacking of „soft power“. Journal of Democracy 27(1): 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waller, Julian. (2021). Mimicking the mad printer: Legislating illiberalism in the post-Soviet space. Problems of Post-Communism, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Way, Lucan. 2015. The limits of autocracy promotion: The case of Russia in the ‚near abroad‘. European Journal of Political Research 54(4): 691–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Way, Lucan. 2020. How a dictator became vulnerable. Journal of Democracy 31(4): 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, Jessica. 2008. Autocratic audience costs: Regime type and signaling resolve. International Organization 62(1): 35–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, Jessica. 2012. Strongmen and straw men: Authoritarian regimes and the initiation of international conflict. American Political Science Review 106(2): 326–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyland, Kurt. 2017a. Autocratic diffusion and cooperation: The impact of interests vs. ideology. Democratization 24(7): 1235–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyland, Kurt. 2017b. Fascism’s missionary ideology and the autocratic wave of the interwar years. Democratization 24(7): 1253–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegand, Krista. 2019. Peaceful dispute resolution by authoritarian regimes. Foreign Policy Analysis 15(3): 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yakouchyk, Katsiaryna. 2016. The good, the bad, and the ambitious: Democracy and autocracy promoters competing in Belarus. European Political Science Review 8(2): 195–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yakouchyk, Katsiaryna. 2019. Beyond autocracy promotion: A review. Political Studies Review 17(2): 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, Jinghan, Tim Stevens, und Yaru Chen. 2017. China’s solution to global cyber governance: Unpacking the domestic discourse of „internet sovereignty“. Politics & Policy 45(3): 432–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbrägel, Tobias, und Thomas Demmelhuber. 2020. Temptations of autocracy: How Saudi Arabia influences and attracts its neighbourhood. Journal of Arabian Studies 10(1): 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zürn, Michael, und Johannes Gerschewski. 2021. Sketching the liberal script. A target of contestations. Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FU Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Alexander Libman

Authors
  1. Alexander Libman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Libman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Deutschland

    Frank Sauer

  2. Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Deutschland

    Luba von Hauff

  3. Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Deutschland

    Carlo Masala

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Libman, A. (2024). Autokratisierung und internationale Politik. In: Sauer, F., von Hauff, L., Masala, C. (eds) Handbuch Internationale Beziehungen. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33953-1_60

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33953-1_60

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-33952-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-33953-1

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation