Abstract
By overlooking the full range of studies of democracy and intervention that we have undertaken, Tures misrepresents our intentions and our evidence. To clarify the definable patterns within democracies' use of interventions, we broaden his picture of our results to demonstrate where his critique of our general findings is misleading. By focusing exclusively on the methodological implications of only one part of our program of research, Tures fails to recognize that how democracy and intervention are conceptualized and operationalized can make a difference. Moreover, his critique misses entirely our evidence showing that democracies use interventions for a variety of purposes and with varying consequences, including strengthening their own security and promoting the spread of liberal democratic institutions consistent with the underlying logic of the democratic peace.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
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.
