Search

The Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project is the largest, most extensive data-collection effort to date on the field of international relations. It systematically and empirically analyzes relationships among pedagogy, scholarship, and international policy. In this paper we draw from two of the three major TRIP data sources to describe trends in the discipline of international relations over the past 27 years (1980-2006). First, we employ a new journal article database that covers every article published in the 12 leading journals in the field. The article is the unit of analysis and we categorize each article in terms of 26 distinct variables,including methodology, epistemology, issue area, substantive focus, author's gender, paradigm advanced, region under study, and many others. We include the codebook for the TRIP journal article database in the Appendix to this paper. Second, we analyze results from two surveys of international relations faculty. The first survey was conducted in 2004 and covered all faculty at U.S. colleges and universities who teach or do research in the field of international relations. The second survey was conducted in 2006 and covered both U.S. and Canadian IR faculty members, although we report only U.S. responses in this paper. The journal article database allows us to track changes in the type of research published in the field,2 while the surveys are primarily useful as contemporary snapshots that document the opinions and practices of IR scholars in terms of their views of the discipline, their research, their teaching practices, and their opinions on contemporary policy issues. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bolstering the North-Atlantic alliance structure to respond to post-9/11 security challenges is a central US foreign policy concern. This has become especially important since the invasion of Iraq appeared to open cracks in this long-standing defense regime. However, the Iraq War is not the first instance where US-initiated military actions resulted in a frosty response from some of America's closest allies. This paper examines instructive cases of US-Canada relations since World War II. Using the operational code construct and the Verbs in Context system for content analysis, the relative compatibility of the respective leader's approaches to international affairs is tracked though their political statement across four major conflicts: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Afghanistan and the War in Iraq. The results suggest that the periodically chilly relations between nations and the variation in their support and participation for their allies' military endeavors are reflected the distance between their leaders' orientations toward conflict. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the evolution of the Canada-U.S, continental security relationship since September 2001. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the evolution of Canada-U.S. continental security relations since September 2001. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Nature and Extent of Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada According to the most prominent proponents of the Attitudinal Model, justices on the United States Supreme Court decide cases based solely on their political preferences and ideology. Justices are free to vote their personal preferences because of a set of institutional features that are not found on other courts in the United States. The implication of their argument is that justices on other courts that share these same institutional features should also be free to vote their attitudinal preferences in all cases. The focus of the paper is whether the Attitudinal Model, as explicated by Schubert (1965), and Segal and Spaeth (1993) provides a sufficient explanation of the voting behavior of judges on the Supreme Court of Canada; a court that shares all of the institutional features argued to support attitudinal voting. To test this theory, we focus on the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada between 1984 and 2002, the period since the docket of that court reflected the emergence of the new issues stimulated by the Charter of Rights. We investigate the impact of judicial attitudes using three methods: factor analysis of votes in criminal and economic cases during the most extended natural court during the Charter period, an investigation of the relationship between newspaper assessments of ideology and judicial voting in three issue areas during the entire Charter period, and an analysis of the relationship between judicial attributes used as surrogates for judicial attitudes and the career voting patterns of justices serving since the adoption of the Charter. All three methods provide independent confirmation of the view that the political preferences of the justices have a substantial impact on their voting choices [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]