1932

Abstract

Scholarship on elites and foreign policy has made important advances in identifying who elites are, what elites want, and how elites influence foreign policy. This review assesses these advances, focusing on the tension between elites’ expertise, on the one hand, and resentment of elites as selfish or unrepresentative of the people's interests, on the other. What remains missing in the literature on elites and foreign policy are the dynamics of elite politics. The same elites can behave very differently in different settings, and elites frequently do not get what they want on foreign policy despite strong preferences. To understand this variation, we need more research on three kinds of elite politics: how elites attain their positions; their incentives once they arrive in those positions; and how elites relate to each other and to mass publics. Without attending to elite politics, we miss important sources of state behavior.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-103330
2022-05-12
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/25/1/annurev-polisci-041719-103330.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-103330&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adler E, Haas PM. 1992. Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. Int. Organ 46:1367–90
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allison GT, Halperin MH 1972. Bureaucratic politics: a paradigm and some policy implications. World Politics 24:40–79
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arias E, Smith A. 2018. Tenure, promotion and performance: the career path of US ambassadors. Rev. Int. Organ 13:177–103
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Avant DD, Finnemore M, Sell SK 2010. Who Governs the Globe? New York:: Cambridge Univ. Press
  5. Bach D, Newman AL. 2010. Transgovernmental networks and domestic policy convergence: Evidence from insider trading regulation. Int. Organ 64:3505–28
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnes TD, O'Brien DZ. 2018. Defending the realm: the appointment of female defense ministers worldwide. Am. J. Political Sci 62:2355–68
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barnhart JN, Trager RF, Saunders EN, Dafoe A. 2020. The suffragist peace. Int. Organ 74:4633–70
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Baum MA, Groeling TJ. 2010. War Stories: The Causes and Consequences of Public Views of War Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  9. Baum MA, Potter PBK. 2015. War and Democratic Constraint: How the Public Influences Foreign Policy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  10. Baum MA, Zhukov YM. 2015. Filtering revolution: reporting bias in international newspaper coverage of the Libyan civil war. J. Peace Res 52:3384–400
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bendor J, Hammond TH. 1992. Rethinking Allison's models. Am. Political Sci. Rev 86:2301–22
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Berinsky AJ. 2009. In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  13. Brutger R, Guisinger A. 2021. Labor market volatility, gender, and trade preferences. J. Exp. Political Sci In press. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.9
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bueno de Mesquita B, Smith A, Siverson RM, Morrow JD. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  15. Busby JW, Kafura C, Monten J, Tama J 2020. Multilateralism and the use of force: experimental evidence on the views of foreign policy elites. Foreign Policy Anal. 16:1118–29
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Busby JW, Monten J. 2008. Without heirs? Assessing the decline of establishment internationalism in U.S. foreign policy. Perspect. Politics 6:3451–72
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bush SS, Zetterberg P. 2021. Gender quotas and international reputation. Am. J. Political Sci 65:2326–41
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Carnegie A, Carson A. 2020. Secrets in Global Governance: Disclosure Dilemmas and the Challenge of International Cooperation New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  19. Carpenter C, Duygulu S, Montgomery AH, Rapp A. 2014. Explaining the advocacy agenda: insights from the human security network. Int. Organ 68:2449–70
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Carson A. 2018. Secret Wars: Covert Conflict in International Politics Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  21. Chaudoin S, Milner HV, Tingley D. 2017. A liberal international American foreign policy under Trump? Maybe down but not out. H-Diplo/ISSF Policy Roundtable 1–6:18–42
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Clary C, Siddiqui N 2021. Voters and foreign policy: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Pakistan. Foreign Policy Anal. 17:2orab001
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Clayton A. 2021. How do electoral gender quotas affect policy?. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 24:235–52
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Colgan JD. 2019. American perspectives and blind spots on world politics. J. Glob. Secur. Stud 4:3300–9
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Colgan JD, Weeks JL. 2015. Revolution, personalist dictatorships, and international conflict. Int. Organ 69:1163–94
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Connelly MJ, Hicks R, Jervis R, Spirling A, Suong CH 2021. Diplomatic documents data for international relations: the Freedom of Information Archive database. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci 38:6762–81
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cooley A, Sharman J. 2017. Transnational corruption and the globalized individual. Perspect. Politics 15:3732–53
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dahl RA. 1990. After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  29. Dahl RA, Levi M. 2009. A conversation with Robert A. Dahl. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 12:1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Davis JW, McDermott R. 2021. The past, present, and future of behavioral IR. Int. Organ 75:1147–77
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Deudney D, Ikenberry GJ. 2018. Liberal world: the resilient order. Foreign Aff 97:16–24
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dietrich S, Hardt H, Swedlund HJ. 2021. How to make elite experiments work in international relations. Eur. J. Int. Relat 27:2596–621
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Draper R. 2020. To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America into Iraq New York: Penguin
  34. Drezner DW. 2017. The Ideas Industry: How Pessimists, Partisans, and Plutocrats Are Transforming the Marketplace of Ideas New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  35. Duchek S, Raetze S, Scheuch I 2020. The role of diversity in organizational resilience: a theoretical framework. Bus. Res 13:2387–423
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Eichenberg RC. 2019. Gender, War, and World Order: A Study of Public Opinion Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  37. Enloe C. 2014. Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  38. Farrell H, Schneier B. 2021. Rechanneling beliefs: how information flows hinder or help American democracy Rep., SNF Agora Inst. at Johns Hopkins Univ. Baltimore, MD:
  39. Fazal TM. 2014. Dead wrong? Battle deaths, military medicine, and exaggerated reports of war's demise. Int. Secur 39:195–125
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Findley MG, Harris AS, Milner HV, Nielson DL. 2017. Who controls foreign aid? Elite versus public perceptions of donor influence in aid-dependent Uganda. Int. Organ 71:4633–63
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Finnemore M, Sikkink K. 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. Int. Organ 52:4887–917
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Fordham BO. 2019. The domestic politics of world power: explaining debates over the United States battleship fleet, 1890–91. Int. Organ 73:2435–68
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Fowler LL. 2015. Watchdogs on the Hill: The Decline of Congressional Oversight of US Foreign Relations Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  44. Fuhrmann M. 2020. When do leaders free-ride? Business experience and contributions to collective defense. Am. J. Political Sci 64:2416–31
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ganguly S, Hellwig T, Thompson WR. 2016. The foreign policy attitudes of Indian elites: variance, structure, and common denominators. Foreign Policy Anal. 13:2416–38
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gelpi C, Feaver PD. 2002. Speak softly and carry a big stick? Veterans in the political elite and the American use of force. Am. Political Sci. Rev 96:4779–93
    [Google Scholar]
  47. George A. 1980. Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of Information and Advice Boulder, CO: Westview
  48. Gerring J, Oncel E, Morrison K, Pemstein D. 2019. Who rules the world? A portrait of the global leadership class. Perspect. Politics 17:41079–97
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gift T, Monten J. 2021. Who's out of touch? Media misperception of public opinion on US foreign policy. Foreign Policy Anal. 17:1128–39
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Gilens M, Page BI. 2014. Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspect. Politics 12:3564–81
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Goddard SE. 2012. Brokering peace: networks, legitimacy, and the Northern Ireland peace process. Int. Stud. Q 56:3501–15
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Goemans HE, Gleditsch KS, Chiozza G. 2009. Introducing Archigos: a dataset of political leaders. J. Peace Res 46:2269–83
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Goldgeier J, Saunders EN. 2018. The unconstrained presidency: checks and balances eroded long before Trump. Foreign Aff. 97:5144–56
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Goldstein J, Gulotty R. 2021. America and the trade regime: What went wrong?. Int. Organ 75:2524–57
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Green DP, Palmquist B, Schickler E 2004. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  56. Guisinger A. 2017. American Opinion on Trade: Preferences Without Politics New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  57. Guisinger A, Saunders EN. 2017. Mapping the boundaries of elite cues: how elites shape mass opinion across international issues. Int. Stud. Q 61:2425–41
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gulzar S. 2021. Who enters politics and why?. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 24:253–75
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hafner-Burton EM, Haggard S, Lake DA, Victor DG. 2017. The behavioral revolution and the study of international relations. Int. Organ 71:Suppl. 1S131
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hafner-Burton EM, Hughes DA, Victor DG. 2013. The cognitive revolution and the political psychology of elite decision making. Perspect. Politics 11:2368–86
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hafner-Burton EM, LeVeck BL, Victor DG, Fowler JH. 2014. Decision maker preferences for international legal cooperation. Int. Organ 68:4845–76
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hardt H. 2018. Who matters for memory: sources of institutional memory in international organization crisis management. Rev. Int. Organ 13:3457–82
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hayes D, Guardino M 2013. Influence from Abroad: Foreign Voices, the Media, and U.S. Public Opinion New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  64. Hollibaugh GE Jr 2015. The political determinants of ambassadorial appointments. Presidential Stud. Q 45:3445–66
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Horowitz MC, Fuhrmann M. 2018. Studying leaders and military conflict: conceptual framework and research agenda. J. Confl. Resolut 62:102072–86
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Horowitz MC, Kahn L. 2020. The AI literacy gap hobbling American officialdom. War on the Rocks https://warontherocks.com/2020/01/the-ai-literacy-gap-hobbling-american-officialdom/
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Horowitz MC, Kreps SE, Fuhrmann M. 2016. Separating fact from fiction in the debate over drone proliferation. Int. Secur 41:27–42
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Horowitz MC, Stam AC, Ellis CM. 2015. Why Leaders Fight New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  69. Howard LM. 2015. US foreign policy habits in ethnic conflict. Int. Stud. Q 59:4721–34
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Howard LM, Dayal AK. 2018. The use of force in UN peacekeeping. Int. Organ 72:171–103
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Howell WG, Pevehouse JC. 2007. While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  72. Hyde SD, Saunders EN. 2020. Recapturing regime type in international relations: leaders, institutions, and agency space. Int. Organ 74:2363–95
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Immerman RH 2021. Scholars and digital archives: living the dream. ? H-Diplo/ISSF Forum 2021-2 https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/discussions/8432436/h-diplo-forum-2021-2-scholars-and-digital-archives-living-dream
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Jacobs LR, Page BI. 2005. Who influences U.S. foreign policy?. Am. Political Sci. Rev 99:1107–23
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Jervis R. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  76. Jervis R, Gavin FJ, Rovner J, Labrosse DN 2018. Chaos in the Liberal Order: The Trump Presidency and International Politics in the Twenty-First Century New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  77. Johnson DDP. 2004. Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  78. Katagiri A, Min E 2019. The credibility of public and private signals: a document-based approach. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113:1156–72
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Kelley JG, Pevehouse JCW. 2015. An opportunity cost theory of US treaty behavior. Int. Stud. Q 53:3531–43
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Kertzer JD. 2020. Re-assessing elite-public gaps in political behavior. Am. J. Political Sci In press
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Kertzer JD, Brutger R. 2016. Decomposing audience costs: bringing the audience back into audience cost theory. Am. J. Political Sci 60:1234–49
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Kertzer JD, Renshon J. 2022. Experiments and surveys on political elites. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 25:52950
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Kertzer JD, Tingley D. 2018. Political psychology in international relations: beyond the paradigms. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 21:319–39
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Kertzer JD, Zeitzoff T. 2017. A bottom-up theory of public opinion about foreign policy. Am. J. Political Sci 61:3543–58
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Krcmaric D, Nelson SC, Roberts A 2020. Studying leaders and elites: the personal biography approach. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 23:133–51
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Krebs RR. 2015. Narrative and the Making of US National Security New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  87. Kreps SE. 2018. Taxing Wars: The American Way of War Finance and the Decline of Democracy New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  88. Kreps SE, Saunders EN, Schultz KA. 2018. The ratification premium: hawks, doves, and arms control. World Politics 70:4479–514
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Krook ML, O'Brien DZ. 2012. All the president's men? The appointment of female cabinet ministers worldwide. J. Politics 74:3840–55
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Kupchan CA, Trubowitz PL. 2007. Dead center: the demise of liberal internationalism in the United States. Int. Secur 32:27–44
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Lindsey D. 2017. Diplomacy through agents. Int. Stud. Q 61:3544–56
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Lupton DL. 2021. Military experience and elite decision-making: self-selection, socialization, and the Vietnam draft lottery. Int. Stud. Q 66:1sqab052
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Lyall J. 2020. Divided Armies: Inequality and Battlefield Performance in Modern War Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  94. Malis M. 2021. Conflict, cooperation, and delegated diplomacy. Int. Organ 75:4101857
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Mason L. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  96. Mattes M, Leeds BA, Carroll R. 2015. Leadership turnover and foreign policy change: societal interests, domestic institutions, and voting in the United Nations. Int. Stud. Q 59:2280–90
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Mattes M, Weeks JLP. 2019. Hawks, doves, and peace: an experimental approach. Am. J. Political Sci 63:153–66
    [Google Scholar]
  98. McCarty N, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 2013. Political Bubbles: Financial Crises and the Failure of American Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  99. McDonald J, Croco SE, Turitto C. 2019. Teflon Don or politics as usual? An examination of foreign policy flip-flops in the age of Trump. J. Politics 81:2757–66
    [Google Scholar]
  100. McNamara K. 2002. Rational fictions: central bank independence and the social logic of delegation. West Eur. Politics 25:147–76
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Merrill JB, McCarthy R. 2020. Trump won Florida after running a false ad tying Biden to Venezuelan socialists. ProPublicaNov. 12 https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-won-florida-after-running-a-false-ad-tying-biden-to-venezuelan-socialists
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Mills CW. 1956. The Power Elite New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  103. Milner HV, Tingley D. 2015. Sailing the Water's Edge: The Domestic Politics of American Foreign Policy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  104. Moravcsik A. 1997. Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics. Int. Organ 51:4513–53
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Mudde C, Kaltwasser CR. 2017. Populism: A Very Short Introduction New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  106. Myrick R. 2021. Do external threats unite or divide? Security crises, rivalries, and polarization in American foreign policy. Int. Organ 75:492158
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Nelson SC. 2014. Playing favorites: how shared beliefs shape the IMF's lending decisions. Int. Organ 68:2297–328
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Nelson SC, Katzenstein PJ. 2014. Uncertainty, risk, and the financial crisis of 2008. Int. Organ 68:2361–92
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Nichols T. 2017. The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  110. Page BI, Bouton M. 2006. The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want from Our Leaders But Don't Get Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  111. Page SE. 2017. The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  112. Pereira MM. 2021. Understanding and reducing biases in elite beliefs about the electorate. Am. Political Sci. Rev 115:41308–24
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Pitesa M, Thau S. 2013. Masters of the universe: how power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard. J. Appl. Psychol 98:3550–58
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Porter P. 2018. Why America's grand strategy has not changed: power, habit, and the US foreign policy establishment. Int. Secur 42:49–46
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Putnam L. 2016. The transnational and the text-searchable: digitized sources and the shadows they cast. Am. Hist. Rev 121:2377–402
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Putnam RD. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. Int. Organ 42:3427–60
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Renshon JD. 2015. Losing face and sinking costs: experimental evidence on the judgment of political and military leaders. Int. Organ 69:3659–95
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Rogowski R. 1987. Political cleavages and changing exposure to trade. Am. Political Sci. Rev 81:41121–37
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Samuels D. 2016. The aspiring novelist who became Obama's foreign-policy guru. N. Y. Times Mag. May 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?ref=magazine
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Saunders EN. 2015. War and the inner circle: democratic elites and the politics of using force. Secur. Stud 24:3466–501
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Saunders EN. 2017. No substitute for experience: presidents, advisers, and information in group decision making. Int. Organ 71:S1S219–47
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Saunders EN. 2018. Leaders, advisers, and the political origins of elite support for war. J. Confl. Resolut 62:102118–49
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Schmidtke H. 2019. Elite legitimation and delegitimation of international organizations in the media: patterns and explanations. Rev. Int. Organ 14:4633–59
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Schramm M, Stark A. 2020. Peacemakers or iron ladies? A cross-national study of gender and international conflict. Secur. Stud 29:3515–48
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Schub R. 2017. Bureaucracies and international crises: what you know depends on where you sit Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Aug. 31–Sep. 3 San Francisco, CA:
  126. Schultz KA. 2018. Perils of polarization for US foreign policy. Wash. Q 40:47–28
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Schultz KA, Weingast BR. 2003. The democratic advantage: institutional foundations of financial power in international competition. Int. Organ 57:13–42
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Schwartz JA, Blair CW. 2020. Do women make more credible threats? Gender stereotypes, audience costs, and crisis bargaining. Int. Organ 74:4872–95
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Seabrooke L, Henriksen LF. 2017. Professional Networks in Transnational Governance Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  130. Seabrooke L, Tsingou E. 2021. Revolving doors in international financial governance. Glob. Netw 21:2294–319
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Staniland P, Naseemullah A, Butt A. 2020. Pakistan's military elite. J. Strateg. Stud 43:174–103
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Tetlock PE. 2005. Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  133. Tickner JA, True J. 2018. A century of international relations feminism: from World War I women's peace pragmatism to the women, peace and security agenda. Int. Stud. Q 62:2221–33
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Tomz M, Weeks JLP, Yarhi-Milo K. 2020. Public opinion and decisions about military force in democracies. Int. Organ 74:1119–43
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Trager RF, Vavreck L. 2011. The political costs of crisis bargaining: presidential rhetoric and the role of party. Am. J. Political Sci 55:3526–45
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Vitalis R. 2016. White World Order, Black Power Politics Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  137. Voeten E. 2007. The politics of international judicial appointments: evidence from the European Court of Human Rights. Int. Organ 61:4669–701
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Wallace SJ. 2014. Representing Latinos: examining descriptive and substantive representation in Congress. Political Res. Q 67:4917–29
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Walt SM. 2018. The Hell of Good Intentions: America's Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of US Primacy New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux:
  140. Waltz KN. 1979. Theory of International Politics Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
  141. White IK. 2007. When race matters and when it doesn't: racial group differences in response to racial cues. Am. Political Sci. Rev 101:2339–54
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Whitlark RE. 2017. Nuclear beliefs: a leader-focused theory of counter-proliferation. Secur. Stud 26:4545–74
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Wolford S. 2007. The turnover trap: new leaders, reputation, and international conflict. Am. J. Political Sci 51:4772–88
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Yarhi-Milo K. 2014. Knowing the Adversary: Leaders, Intelligence, and Assessment of Intentions in International Relations Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  145. Zaller J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  146. Zvobgo K. 2020. Demanding truth: the global transitional justice network and the creation of truth commissions. Int. Stud. Q 64:3609–25
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-103330
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-103330
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error