Search

This paper seeks to account systematically for the decision of 100 states to ratify the ICC statute out of the 191 UN member states in the international system by the end of 2005. The 91 negative cases provide an important counterweight for analysis of the underlying reasons that make some states more likely to join the ICC rather than others. Because the factors that contribute to states' decisions about ratifying the ICC statute are many and varied, we expect complex interaction effects between factors. Thus the goal of quantitative analysis of these 191 cases is to develop a typology of the various groups of states that choose to ratify and those who do not.Understanding what factors influence state decisions to ratify a constitutional treaty like the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court is crucially important for evaluating the role of the treaty ratification process in legitimating new international institutions. Competing theories of international cooperation suggest a variety of factors that may influence state decisions to ratify a treaty such as the International Criminal Court statute. We test the impact of each of these factors on ratification decisions for the entire population of states. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why are some political party members more active than others? Employing member surveys from 29 political parties in 5 advanced democracies, the multi-level analysis examines the individual and contextual roots of member activism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study which examined the impact of polity and party organization size on political participation. Effect of national electorate size on party membership enrollment rates; Relationship between party size and member activism; Implications of the study for party membership and political participation.

This paper develops and tests a theory of dominant (intraparty) factions that seeks to account for the failure of parties to converge on the median voter and adopt more moderate ideological positions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the psychological roots of intraparty power. Since Michels' seminal study of parties, scholars have contended that the psychological tendencies of leaders and members alike pose a major hurdle to intraparty democracy. On the one hand, leaders are thought to desire above all else the personal benefits of public office; hence, they seek complete control over party decision-making and aim to limit the role of the more ideologically minded members and activists. On the other, the rank-and-file accept and even endorse elite control, because they have a "psychological need" for strong leadership and a general apathy toward the entire political process. In short, oligarchy is inevitable because leaders seek it and members willingly acquiesce to it. While Michels' thesis has long held near axiomatic status in the party literature, there has been only limited empirical research on its validity or underlying assumptions. Drawing on a unique set of representative party member surveys from 13 parties in Denmark and The Netherlands, this study constitutes perhaps the most comprehensive and systematic attempt to assess the psychological roots of intraparty power. Specifically, it examines attitudinal support for two competing visions of party democracy: elite-driven and grass-roots, participatory. Overall, the results provide mixed support for Michels' thesis. On the one hand, a clear majority of members in several parties, especially those on the right, are deferent to the leadership. On the other, there is little evidence that leaders have an insatiable appetite for power. Indeed, in 12 of our 13 parties, the leaders, both party and public office-holders, are more supportive of the grass-roots, participatory model than are members themselves! Moreover, the multivariate analysis indicates that attitudes toward intraparty power vary depending on party ideology and the formal structure of internal power-members as well as leaders of leftist, decentralized parties express greater support for grass-roots, participatory democracy. Finally, at the individual-level, age, education, post-materialist values, and political efficacy are found to affect support for the two competing models of democracy. This paper makes an important contribution to our understanding of the intricacies of intraparty power and decision-making in the modern democratic process. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Criminal Court is a new institution of global governance with substantial power to prosecute War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, and Genocide that involve the nationals or territory of the member states. This paper explains why some states have ratified, while others have not, and additionally accounts for the timing of decisions to ratify by those states that have done so. Of the world?s 191 UN member states, 99 chose to ratify the ICC statute between 1998 and 2005. Understanding what factors influence states decisions to ratify a constitutional treaty like the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court is crucially important for evaluating the role of the treaty ratification process in legitimating new international institutions. Competing theories of international cooperation suggest a variety of factors that may influence state decisions to ratify a treaty such as the International Criminal Court statute. We test the impact of each of these factors on ratification decisions for the entire population of states. Institutionalist theories focus our attention on the importance of government design, including regime type, strength of the executive, and the number of veto points in the ratification process. Realist theories suggest states frequently engaged in military conflict would want to avoid the oversight of the ICC on their war-making activity. Additionally realist theory predicts that pressure from powerful outside states could shape decisions on the ICC issue. We assess states? vulnerability to pressure from the EU (which favored the ICC) and the US (which opposed it after 2001) in order to evaluate the overall impact of external pressure on ICC ratification decisions. Finally, constructivist theories suggest that pro-human rights NGOs can transform states? definition of their own interests through normative discourse, thus leading to decisions to join pro-human rights international institutions like the ICC. We measure the level of pro-ICC activity by domestically based human rights NGOs and major international NGOs in each state to assess the overall effectiveness of such activity in accounting for ICC ratification decisions.This quantitative analysis allows us to develop an informal typology of states that ratify the ICC, and states that refuse to ratify the ICC statute. For example, one category of ratifying states is advanced industrial democracies with strong human rights groups with little involvement in military activity. Another category of ratifying states is developing, authoritarian regimes subject to pressure from the EU with active domestic human rights NGOs. In contrast, one type of non-ratifying state is developing authoritarian regimes without active human rights groups that are not vulnerable to EU pressure. In order to amplify our understanding of the influence of these factors in practice, we supplement the quantitative analysis with a brief qualitative analysis of the ratification debate and process (or lack thereof) in a state that is an exemplar of each of the categories identified.As noted above, it is crucial to understand what factors drive ratification decisions amongst states, because the treaty ratification procedure is the primary political mechanism for legitimating new institutions of global governance. If democratic states are the major advocates of new international institutions, it implies we are entering a period of Kantian international institution building on the back of the democratic peace. On the other hand, if the ICC is ratified by authoritarian states under pressure from major powers with little discussion by domestic human rights groups, it suggests that the international criminal court may not enjoy broad based legitimacy in the very societies that are most likely to be the subjects of ICC investigations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are party activists extremists? Employing a unique set of member surveys, the article examines intraparty opinion structure in 29 parties across 5 democracies. Finding limited support for May's Law, it then seeks to explain the divergent patterns. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]