A principal agent model is used to test the hypothesis that when proposed uses of force attract the support of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, the rally in support of the American president increases significantly. Regression analysis is applied to rallies during all militarized interstate disputes from 1945 to 2001. Results show that UN Security Council support significantly increases the rally behind the president (by as many as 9 points in presidential approval), even after including an array of control variables. This finding is generally robust across most model specifications. This effect is unique among international institutions because other actions by the UN or regional security organizations do not significantly affect rallies. These findings provide new insight into how international institutions can matter and influence the foreign policies of states by affecting public opinion.
Baker, William D., and John R. Oneal. 2001. Patriotism or opinion leadership: The nature and origins of the “rally ’round the flag” effect. Journal of Conflict Resolution45 (5): 661-687.
2.
Barnett, Michael N.1998. The limits of peacekeeping, spheres of influence, and the future of the United Nations. In Collective conflict management and changing world politics, edited by Joseph Lepgold and Thomas G. Weiss.New York: SUNY Press.
3.
Baum, Matthew A.2002. The constituent foundations of the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon. International Studies Quarterly46:263-298.
4.
Bennett, Andrew, Joseph Lepgold, and Danny Unger. 1997. Burden sharing in the Persian Gulf War: Framework and research design. In Friends in need: Burden sharing in the Persian Gulf War, edited by Andrew Bennett, Joseph Lepgold, and Danny Unger, 3-34. New York: St. Martin’s.
5.
Berman, Frank. 2004. The authorization model: Resolution 678 and its effects. In The UN Security Council, edited by David M. Malone, 153-165. Boulder, CO: Lynn-Rienner.
6.
Betts, Richard K.1977. Soldiers, statesmen, and cold war crises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Brace, Paul, and Barbara Hinckley. 1992. Follow the leader: Opinion polls and the modern presidents. New York: Basic Books.
8.
Brecher, Michael, Jonathan Wilkenfeld, and Sheila Moser. 1988. Crises in the twentieth century: Handbook of international crises. Vol. 1. New York: Pergamon.
9.
Brehm, John, and Scott Gates. 1997. Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10.
Brody, Richard A.1991. Assessing the president. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
Bush, George, and Brent Scowcroft. 1998. A world transformed. New York: Vintage.
12.
Carrubba, Clifford J., and Anand Singh. 2004. A decision theoretic model of public opinion formation: Guns, butter, and European common defense. American Journal of Political Science48 (2): 218-231.
13.
Clodfelter, Micheal. 2002. Warfare and armed conflicts: A statistical reference to casualty and other figures, 1500-2000. 2d ed.Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
14.
Corbetta, Renato, and William J. Dixon. 2004. Multilateralism, major powers, and militarized disputes. Political Research Quarterly57:5-14.
15.
Davies, Graeme A. M.2002. Domestic strife and the initiation of international conflicts: A directed dyad analysis, 1950-1982. Journal of Conflict Resolution46:672-692.
16.
Desch, Michael. 2002. Democracy and victory: Why regime type hardly matters. International Security27:5-48.
17.
Downs, George W., and David M. Rocke. 1994. Conflict, agency, and gambling for resurrection: The principal-agent problem goes to war. American Journal of Political Science38:362-380.
18.
Edwards, George C.1997. Aligning tests with theory: Presidential approval as a source of influence in Congress. Congress & the Presidency24 (2): 113-130.
19.
Feaver, Peter D.2003. Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil-military relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Feaver, Peter D., and Christopher Gelpi. 2004. Choosing your battles: American civil-military relations and the use of force. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
Fortna, Virginia Page. 2003. Scraps of paper? Agreements and the durability of peace. International Organization57:337-372.
22.
Gartner, Scott Sigmund, and Gary Segura. 1998. War, casualties, and public opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution42:278-300.
23.
Gartzke, Erik, and Kristian S. Gleditsch. Forthcoming. Regime type and alliance commitment: Why democracies are actually less reliable. American Journal of Political Science.
24.
Gelpi, Christopher. 1999. Alliances as instruments of intra-allied control. In Imperfect unions: Security institutions over time and space, edited by Helga Hafterndorn, Robert O. Keohane, and Celeste A. Wallander, 107-139. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
Gelpi, Christopher F., and Michael Griesdorf. 2001. Winners or losers? Democracies in international crisis, 1918-1994. American Political Science Review95:633-647.
26.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, Peter Wallensteen, Mikael Eriksson, Margareta Sollenberg, and Håvard Strand. 2002. Armed conflict 1946-2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research39:615-637.
27.
Gochman, Charles S., and Zeev Maoz. 1984. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1976: Procedures, patterns, and insights. Journal of Conflict Resolution28:585-615.
28.
Gowa, Joanne. 1994. Allies, adversaries, and international trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
Hurd, Ian.2003. Too legit to quit. Foreign Affairs82 (4): 204-205.
30.
Indyk, Martin, and Kenneth Pollack. 2003. How can Bush avoid the inspections trap?New York Times, January 27.
31.
James, Patrick, and Jean Sebastian Rioux. 1998. International crises and linkage politics: The experience of the US, 1953-1994. Political Research Quarterly51:781-813.
32.
Jentleson, Bruce W.1992. The pretty prudent public: Post post-Vietnam American opinion and the use of military force. International Studies Quarterly36:49-74.
33.
Jentleson, Bruce W.2003-2004. Tough love multilateralism. Washington Quarterly27:7-24.
34.
Jentleson, Bruce W., and Rebecca L. Britton. 1998. Still pretty prudent: Post-cold war American public opinion and the use of military force. Journal of Conflict Resolution42:395-417.
35.
Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2001. Treating international institutions as social environments. International Studies Quarterly45:487-516.
36.
Jones, Daniel M., Stuart A. Bremer, and J. David Singer. 1996. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science15:163-213.
37.
Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Kant’s political writings. Edited by Hans Reiss.2nd ed.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Kennan, George F.1984. American diplomacy. Expanded ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Kiewet, D. Roderick, and Matthew D. McCubbins. 1991. The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
Kohut, Andrew. 2002. Simply put, the public’s view can’t be put simply. The Washington Post, September 29.
41.
Kostadinova, Tatiana. 2000. East European public support for NATO membership: Fears and aspirations. Journal of Peace Research37 (2): 235-249.
42.
Kull, Steven, and I. M. Destler. 1999. Misreading the public: The myth of a new isolationism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
43.
Kydd, Andrew. 2003. Which side are you on? Bias, credibility, and mediation. American Journal of Political Science47:597-611.
44.
Lai, Brian, and Dan Reiter. Forthcoming. Rally ’round the Union Jack? Public opinion and the use of force in the United Kingdom, 1948-2001. International Studies Quarterly.
45.
Lake, David A.1999. Entangling relations: American foreign policy in its century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
Leeds, Brett Ashley. 1999. Domestic political institutions, credible commitments, and international cooperation. American Journal of Political Science43:979-1002.
47.
Leeds, Brett Ashley. 2003. Do alliances deter aggression? The influence of military alliances on the initiation of militarized interstate disputes. American Journal of Political Science47:427-439.
48.
Lian, Bradley, and John Oneal. 1993. Presidents, the use of military force, and public opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution37:277-300.
49.
Lipman, Barton L., and Duane J. Seppi. 1995. Robust inference in communication games with partial provability. Journal of Economic Theory66:370-405.
50.
Lippmann, Walter. 1955. Essays in the public philosophy. Boston: Little, Brown.
51.
Malone, David M., ed. 2004. The UN Security Council: From the cold war to the 21st century. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
52.
Mansfield, Edward D., Helen V. Milner, and B. Peter Rosendorff. 2002. Why democracies cooperate more: Electoral control and international trade agreements. International Organization56:477-513.
53.
McCubbins, Matthew D., and Thomas Schwartz. 1984. Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science2:165-179.
54.
Mearsheimer, John J.2001. The tragedy of great power politics. New York: Norton.
55.
Milgrom, Paul, and John Roberts. 1986. Relying on the information of interested parties. RAND Journal of Economics17:18-32.
56.
Morrow, James D.2001. The institutional features of the prisoners of war treaties. American Journal of Political Science55:973-993.
57.
Mueller, John E.1985. War, presidents, and public opinion. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
58.
Neustadt, Richard E.1990. Presidential power and the modern presidents. New York: Free Press.
59.
Nielson, Daniel L., and Michael J. Tierney. 2003. Delegation to international organizations: Agency theory and World Bank environmental reform. International Organization57:241-276.
60.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr.2002. The paradox of American power: Why the world’s only superpower can’t go it alone. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
61.
Oneal, John R., Briad Lian, and James H. Joyner Jr.1996. Are the American people “pretty prudent”? Public responses to U.S. uses of force, 1950-1988. International Studies Quarterly40:261-280.
62.
Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63.
Parker, Suzanne L.1995. Toward an understanding of “rally effects”: Public opinion in the Persian Gulf War. Public Opinion Quarterly59:526-546.
64.
Putnam, Robert. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization42:427-460.
65.
Rawski, Frederick, and Nathan Miller. 2004. The US in the Security Council: A Faustian bargain? In The UN Security Council, edited by David M. Malone, 357-371. Boulder, CO: Lynn-Rienner.
66.
Reiter, Dan, and Curtis Meek. 1999. Determinants of military strategy, 1903-1994: A quantitative empirical test. International Studies Quarterly43:363-387.
67.
Reiter, Dan, and Allan C. Stam. 2002. Democracies at war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
68.
Richards, Diana, T.Clifton Morgan, Rick K. Wilson, Valerie L. Schwebach, and Garry D. Young. 1993. Good times, bad times, and the diversionary use of force: A tale of some not-so-free agents. Journal of Conflict Resolution37:504-535.
69.
Rioux, Jean-Sebastien. 1998. A crisis-based evaluation of the democratic peace proposition. Canadian Journal of Political Science31:263-283.
70.
Rivers, Douglas, and Nancy Rose. 1985. Passing the president’s program: Public opinion and presidential influence in Congress. American Journal of Political Science29 (2): 183-196.
71.
Roberts, Adam. 2004. The use of force. In The UN Security Council, edited by David M. Malone, 133-152. Boulder, CO: Lynn-Rienner.
72.
Russett, Bruce. 1994. The Gulf War as empowering the United Nations. In War and its consequences: Lessons from the Persian Gulf conflict, edited by John O’Loughlin, Tom Mayer, and Edward S. Greenberg, 185-197. New York: HarperCollins.
73.
Russett, Bruce, and John Oneal. 2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York: Norton.
74.
Schultz, Kenneth A.2001. Democracy and coercive diplomacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
Simmons, Beth A.2002. Capacity, commitment, and compliance: International institutions and territorial disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution46:829-856.
76.
Siverson, Randolph M.1995. Democratic and war participation: In defense of the institutional constraints argument. European Journal of International Relations1:481-489.
77.
Smith, Alastair. 1996. Diversionary foreign policy and democratic systems. International Studies Quarterly40:133-153.
78.
Tharoor, Shashi. 2003. Why America still needs the United Nations. Foreign Affairs82 (5): 67-81.
79.
Wallander, Celeste A., and Robert O. Keohane. 1995. Toward an institutional theory of alliances. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, February 21-25, Chicago.
80.
Wallensteen, Peter, and Patrik Johansson. 2004. Security Council decision in perspective. In The UN Security Council, edited by David M. Malone, 17-33. Boulder, CO: Lynn-Rienner.
81.
Waltz, Kenneth N.1979. Theory of international politics. New York: Random House.
82.
We shall overcome. 2003. The Economist, March 15.
83.
We, the ambivalent people. 2003. The Economist, January 25.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
