Every year since 1946, representatives of the UN member states gather at the annual sessions of the United Nations General Assembly. The centrepiece of each session is the General Debate. This is a forum at which leaders and other senior officials deliver statements that present their government’s perspective on the major issues in world politics. These statements are akin to the annual legislative state-of-the-union addresses in domestic politics. See more from the UN here. This dataset, the UN General Debate Corpus (UNGDC), introduces the corpus of transcripts of General Debate statements from 1946 (Session 1) to 2022 (Session 77). Additional information is available from here.

A recently-published dataset of Middle East and North Africa (MENA) focused scholarship in journals selected to represent Political Science’s disciplinary ‘core’ sheds empirical light on key publishing trends, from the balance between quantitative and qualitative studies to the growth in experimental and ‘large-n’ statistical methods. Cammett and Kendall’s (2021) analysis shows that between 2001 and 2019 MENA-focused work declined as a share of publications, but that just under half of that work is qualitative. However, the definition of qualitative research the study uses significantly understates the number of such scholarship in the CK dataset. Our analysis rectifies this, distinguishing between research using qualitative evidence, qualitative methods, theoretical traditions, and paradigms (positivist/post-positivist). This yields a more accurate and altogether starker picture of MENA qualitative research’s marginality in ‘core’ Politics journals. These results raise the question of why methodologically sophisticated scholarship outside ‘top journals’ has not been published there.

This includes the Original dataset (Book1.xlsx), Calibrated data (Calibrateddata.xlsx), RScript (.Rmd), and R Markdown file (.html), for the article "What is Ragin's Indirect Method of Calibration?" (DOI:10.1080/13645579.2022.2110732)

Recent debates about the state of International Relations (IR) raise the possibility that the field is losing its theoretical innovativeness due to professional incentives to churn out publications. Yet the claims made about IR far outstrip the availability of empirical data. Important assertions derive from a handful of examples rather than systematic evidence. This paper presents an investigation of what gets taught to doctoral students of IR in the United States. I find, among other things, that the type of research most frequently published in IR journals differs in systematic ways from the type of research taught to graduate students. In turn, this raises important questions such as whether certain types of valuable research face a relative disadvantage when it comes to getting published in the first place. The evidence also points to the partial separation of IR from Political Science in the United States. Further, it casts doubt on the growing practice of using Google Scholar to measure research influence. A new metric, which I call the Training Influence Score (TIS), supports the analysis.

These are the qualitative data that I used for the article: Akande, Dapo and Milanovic, Marko (21 November 2015) “The constructive ambiguity of the Security Council ISIS resolution.” European Journal of International Law blog. Ambos, Kai (1999). Comment” on the articles by Bruno Simma, “Nato the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects” and Antonio Cassese “Ex Iniuria Ius Oritur”, available at http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol10/No1/coma.html. Bellamy, Alex (2006) Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics and International Affairs, 20 (2), pp. 143-169. Bevir, Mark, Daddow, Oliver, and Hall, Ian (2013) Introduction: Interpreting British Foreign Policy. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 15, pp. 163-174. Brockmeier, Sarah, et al (2016). The Impact of the Libyan Intervention Debates on Norm Protection. Global Society, 30(1), 113-133. Cantir, Cristian and Kaarbo, Juliet (eds.) (2016) Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy, and International Relations, London, Routledge. Cantir, Cristian and Kaarbo, Juliet (January 2012) Contested roles and domestic politics: reflections on role theory in foreign policy analysis and IR theory. Foreign Policy Analysis 8(1), pp. 5-24. Chandler, David (2011) Libya: The End of Intervention. In The Responsibility to Protect: Challenges & Opportunities in Light of the Libyan Intervention. Bristol, E-International Relations, pp. 24-5. Checkel, Jeffrey, T. (1997) International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the Rationalist-Constructivist Divide. European Journal of International Relations 3(4), pp. 473-95. Clegg, Nick et al. (29 August 2013) Why we must Act against Syria’s Chemical Weapons. Evening Standard. Daalder, Ivo and O’Hanlon, Michael (2000) Winning Ugly: NATO’s War to Save Kosovo. Washington, DC, Brookings Institution Press. Daddow, Oliver, Schnapper, Pauline (2013) Liberal Intervention in the Foreign Policy Thinking of Tony Blair and David Cameron. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 26(2), pp. 330-349. Dunne, Tim (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. London, Palgrave. Foot, Rosemary (May 2017) China and the International Human Protection Regime: Beliefs, Power, and Status in a Changing Normative Order. International Affairs (661), pp. 1-11. Gaskarth, Jamie (2014) Strategising Britain’s Role in the World. International Affairs, 90 (3), pp. 559-81. Gaskarth, Jamie (2016) Intervention, Domestic Contestation, and Britain’s National Role Conceptions. In Cantir, C. and Kaarbo, J., Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy, and International Relations London, Routledge, pp. 105-121. George, Alexander and Bennett, Andrew (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MIT Press. Hagan, Joe D, et al. (2001) Foreign Policy by Coalition: Deadlock, Compromise, and Anarchy. International Studies Review, 3(2), 169-216. Glennon, J. Michael (1999). “The New Interventionism,” Foreign Affairs 78. Harnisch, Sebastian, Frank, Cornelia, and Maull, Hanns W. (2011) Role Theory in International Relations: Approaches and Analyses. London: Routledge. Hazan, Reuven (2000). Intra-party Politics and Peacemaking in Democratic Societies: Israel’s Labor Party and the Middle East Peace Process, 1992-96. Journal of Peace Research, 37(3), 363-78. Heffernan, Richard (2005). Why the Prime Minister cannot be a President: Comparing Institutional Imperatives in Britain and America. Parliamentary Affairs, 58(1), 53-70. Hehir, Aidan (2010) Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction. London, Palgrave. Hehir, A. (2011). The Illusion of Progress: Libya and the Future of R2P. In The Responsibility to Protect: Challenges & Opportunities in Light of the Libyan Intervention. Bristol, E-International Relations, pp. 18-9. Hoekema, Jan (2004). Srebrenica, Dutchbat, and the Role of the Netherlands’ Parliament. In Hans Born, Heiner Hanggi (eds.), The Double Democratic Deficit: Parliamentary Accountability and the Use of Force under International Auspices, London: Ashgate, 73-89. Holsti, Kalevi (1970) National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly 14 (3), pp. 233–309. Holzgrefe J.L (2003). The Humanitarian Intervention Debate.” In Humanitarian Intervention Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas, edited by J.L. Holzgrefe and Robert O. Keohane, 15-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Houghton, David, P (1996). The Role of Analogical Reasoning in Novel Foreign-Policy Situations. British Journal of Political Science, 26(4), 523-52. Jervis, Robert (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kaarbo, Juliet, Kenealy, Daniel (2017) Precedents, parliaments, and foreign policy: Historical Analogy in the House of Commons vote on Syria. West European Politics, pp. 62-79. Kaarbo, Juliet, Kenealy, Daniel (2015) No, Prime Minister: Explaining the House of Common’s Vote on Intervention in Syria. European Security, 1-22. Kaarbo, Juliet, Kenealy, Daniel (January 2014) The House of Common’s vote on British intervention in Syria. ISPI, Analysis 228. Kesgin, Baris, Kaarbo, Juliet (February 2010) When and how Parliaments influence Foreign Policy: The Case of Turkey’s Iraq Decision. International Studies Perspectives. 1 (11), pp. 19-36. Kettel, Steven (2013) Dilemmas of Discourse: Legitimising Britain’s War on Terror. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 15, pp. 263-79. Khong, Yuen, F (1992). Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press. May, Ernest R. (1973). Lessons of the Past: The Use and Misuse of History in American Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. McCourt, David (2013) Embracing humanitarian intervention: Atlanticism and the UK interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 15 (2), pp. 246–62. Mello, Patrick A. (2017). Curbing the Royal Prerogative to use military force: The British House of Commons and the Conflicts in Libya and Syria. West European Politics, 40(1): 80-100. Neumann, Iver B. (2008) Discourse Analysis. In Klotz, Audrey and Prakash, Deepa (eds). Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide. London, Palgrave, pp. 61-77. Neustadt, Richard E., May, Ernest R. (1986). Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers. New York: Free Press. Peters, Dirk, Wagner, Wolfgang (2014). Executive Privilege or Parliamentary Proviso? Exploring the Sources of Parliamentary War Powers. Armed Forces and Society. 40(2): 310-331. Peterson, M. J (1997). The Use of Analogies in Developing Outer Space Law. International Organization, 51(2), 245-274. Ralph, Jason et. al. (December 2017) Before the vote: UK Foreign policy discourse on Syria 2011-2013. Review of International Studies. 43 (5), pp. 875-97. Rathbun, Brian C. (2004) Partisan Interventions European Party Politics and Peace Enforcement in the Balkans. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Raunio, Tapio, Wagner, Wolfgang (2017) Towards Parliamentarisation of foreign and security policy? West European Politics 40(1), pp. 1-19. Reifler, Jason. et al. (2014) Prudence, principle and minimal heuristics: British public opinion toward the use of military force in Afghanistan and Libya. British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 16(1), pp. 28–55. Reiter, Dan, Tillman, Erik (2002). Public, Legislative, and Executive Constraints on the Democratic Initiation of Conflict. The Journal of Politics, 64(3), 810-26. Reus-Smit Christian (1999) The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Risse, Thomas (Winter 2000) “Let’s Argue!” Communicative Action in World Politics, International Organization 54(1), pp. 1-39. Rose, Gideon (October 1998) Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics 51(1), pp. 144–72. Saideman, Stephen, Auerswald, David P (2012). Comparing Caveats: Understanding the Sources of National Restrictions upon NATO’s Mission in Afghanistan. International Studies Quarterly. 56, 67-84. Simma, Bruno (1999) NATO, the UN, and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects. European Journal of International Law (10), pp. 1-22; Strong, James (2015) Why Parliaments now decides on War: Tracing the Growth of the Parliamentary Prerogative through Syria, Libya, and Iraq. British Journal of Politics and International Relations (17), pp. 604-22. Wagner, Wolfgang, et al. (2018) Party Politics at the Water’s Edge: Contestation of Military Operations in Europe. European Political Science Review, 1-27. Weiss, Thomas G (2011) Whither R2P? In The Responsibility to Protect: Challenges & Opportunities in Light of the Libyan Intervention. Bristol, E-International Relations, pp. 7-11. Weiss, Thomas G (2014) After Syria: Whither R2P? In Murray, Robert W. and McKay Alasdair. Into the Eleventh Hour: R2P, Syria, and Humanitarianism in Crisis. Bristol, E-International Relations, pp. 34-7. Weiss, Thomas G (June 2004) The Sunset of Humanitarian Intervention? Responsibility to Protect in a Unipolar Era. Security Dialogue, 35 (2), pp. 135-53. Weller, Mark (25 November 2015) Permanent Imminence of Armed Attacks: Resolution 2249 (2015) and the Right to Self Defence against Designated Terrorist Groups. European Journal of International Law Blog.

Explore the progression of average salaries for graduates in Computer Science, Political Science, And International Relations from 2020 to 2023 through this detailed chart. It compares these figures against the national average for all graduates, offering a comprehensive look at the earning potential of Computer Science, Political Science, And International Relations relative to other fields. This data is essential for students assessing the return on investment of their education in Computer Science, Political Science, And International Relations, providing a clear picture of financial prospects post-graduation.

Claims about International Relations, and Political Science more broadly, becoming more globalized coexist with enduring critiques of the discipline being dominated by scholars from wealthier, Western countries. In this article, we leverage data on publication patterns between 2008 and 2020 in the Argentine IR community, which we believe is a relevant and potentially representative sample from the Global South, to show that the discipline is becoming more globalized yet also more segmented. We argue this segmentation is a product of unequal participation in social and professional networks. The norms and information that circulate through these networks shape both the inclination and the ability of Global South scholars to join a globalizing discipline

This article addresses the underrepresentation of Global South scholars in Global North journals. In order to explore this issue, we conducted a study on the submission decisions of Global South scholars, with a focus on International Relations (IR). We collected novel data on IR scholars based in Latin America and conducted a conjoint experiment on a sample of 446 scholars. Our study provides the first experimental evidence of journal submission choice in Political Science in the Global South. Our findings indicate that both journal attributes and individual characteristics impact the choice of journal, including factors such as language, editorial location, and acceptance rates. This research has important implications for the discipline and for journal editors in the Global North, as it provides valuable insights on how to promote diversity in academic publishing as well as the limits of such strategies.

Diplomatic recognition is an essential tool of statecraft but remains largely unanalyzed by political scientists. Two recent trends in diplomatic practice raise notable puzzles: (i) use of diplomatic ties to signal (dis)approval of a regime or its policies, based largely on cues from diplomatic partners, and (ii) reliance on diplomatic missions as a means of securing prestige in the international system. I argue that both trends are the result of network influences. States face resource constraints and must choose diplomatic partners wisely, but they lack complete information about the risks and benefits of extending diplomatic recognition. To solve this informational dilemma, they condition recognition on the diplomatic activity of others. First, states send missions to countries that host missions from their own diplomatic partners, which increases the strength of diplomatic signals and reduces political risks. Second, states send missions to countries that host large numbers of missions in general (that is, "prestigious" countries), which increases their capacity for information gathering. In general, a state's decision to extend or retract diplomatic recognition depends heavily on the decisions of other states. Employing novel network methodologies, I show that these endogenous network influences are among the most consistent and substantively powerful determinants of diplomatic recognition.

Composite Value of Each Alternative with SAW Model.

Paper abstract: International relations scholars frequently argue that violations of international law generate political costs for governments. Yet we know little about whether governments can evade responsibility for non-compliance, which may be a low-salience issue for domestic audiences. We propose a theory of image management whereby leaders strategically contest international law violations to influence citizen perceptions of the leader or government. Drawing on communications scholarship, we disaggregate government image into four underlying dimensions: morality, performance, lawfulness, and allegiance. A government's response to violations is designed to influence the dimensions of image valued by their political coalition. We develop a typology of response strategies and test their effects in a survey experiment examining violations of the torture, trade, and chemical weapons regimes. Our results offer fresh insights for compliance scholarship. Governments can mitigate backlash and leverage allegations of non-compliance for political ends, but their strategies are constrained by the foreign policy preferences of supporters. Data information: CSV file is original survey data from a survey conducted via the Lucid platform in May 2020. R code replicates paper and appendix.

Recent studies on political ideology suggest the existence of partisan divides on matters of foreign and security policy, challenging the notion that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” However, when taken as a whole, extant work provides decidedly mixed evidence of party-political differences outside domestic politics. This article first conducts a systematic empirical analysis of the relationship between parties’ left–right positions and their general attitude toward peace and security missions, which suggests that right-leaning parties tend to be more supportive of military operations. Yet, the results also show that the empirical pattern is curvilinear: centrist and center–right parties witness the highest level of support for military missions, while parties on both ends of the political spectrum show substantially less support. The second part of our analysis examines whether the stronger support of rightist parties for peace and security missions translates into a greater inclination of right-wing governments to actually deploy forces for military operations. Strikingly, our results suggest that leftist governments were actually more inclined to participate in operations than their right-leaning counterparts. The greater willingness of left-wing executives to deploy military forces is the result of their greater inclination to participate in operations with inclusive goals.