Security cooperation between states is an important aspect of foreign policy, but accurate measurement of security relationships is difficult. This paper introduces a new dataset containing a novel measure of state security-related foreign policy positions within the international system derived exclusively from observational security data. This new measure provides continuous, yearly, country-level security position scores for each state in the international system which reflect a state's level of security coordination with US-led security hegemony. This new measure of state security positions is comparable with widely used measures of state ideology and provides a new tool for international relations research. Independently derived measures of state ideology and security relationships allow for better understanding and prediction of foreign policy outcomes.
AlesinaADollarD (1998) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why? Technical Report w6612. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
2.
AntezzaAFrankAFrankP, et al. (2022) The Ukraine Support Tracker: Which Countries Help Ukraine and How? Working Paper, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
3.
BaileyMAStrezhnevAVoetenE (2017) Estimating dynamic state preferences from united nations voting data. Journal of Conflict Resolution61(2): 430–456.
4.
BarbieriKOmar KeshkOM (2016) Correlates of War Project Trade Data Set Codebook, Version 4.0. www.correlatesofwar.org
5.
BBC (2020) Trump approves plan to cut troops in Germany. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53248177
6.
BeckN (2020) Estimating grouped data models with a binary-dependent variable and fixed effects via a logit versus a linear probability model: The impact of dropped units. Political Analysis28(1): 139–145.
7.
BennettDSRupertMC (2003) Comparing measures of political similarity: An empirical comparison of S versus b in the study of international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution47(3): 367–393.
8.
BernhardtJ (2020) Introducing the Joint Military Exercise Data Set. https://purl.stanford.edu/kb768wv0832
9.
BremerSA (1992) Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution36(2): 309–341.
10.
Bueno de MesquitaB (1975) Measuring systemic polarity. Journal of Conflict Resolution19(2): 187–216.
11.
CarterDBStoneRW (2015) Democracy and multilateralism: The case of vote buying in the UN general assembly. International Organization69(1): 1–33.
12.
DoyleMW (1986) Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review80(4): 1151–1169.
13.
DreherAJensenN (2007) Independent actor or agent? An empirical analysis of the impact of U.S. Interests on international monetary fund conditions. The Journal of Law and Economics50(1): 105–124.
14.
FearonJDHansenBT (2016) The arms trade, international alignments, and international conflict. https://dpsa.dk/papers/Fearon_Hansen_The%20arms%20trade,%20international%20alignments,%20and%20international%20conflict.pdf
15.
GallopMMinhasS (2021) A Network Approach to Measuring State Preferences. Network Science9(2): 135–152.
16.
GartzkeE (1998) Kant we all just get along? Opportunity, willingness, and the origins of the democratic peace. American Journal of Political Science42(1): 1–27.
17.
GartzkeE (2000) Preferences and the democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly44(2): 191–212.
18.
GartzkeEZhangJJ (2015) Trade and war. In: The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 419–438.
19.
GiblerDM (2008) International Military Alliances, 1648–2008. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
20.
GowaJHicksR (2013) Politics, institutions, and trade: Lessons of the interwar era. International Organization87(3): 439–467.
21.
GowaJMansfieldED (1993) Power politics and international trade. American Political Science Review87(2): 408–420.
22.
GowaJMansfieldED (2004) Alliances, imperfect markets, and Major-power trade. International Organization58(4): 775–805.
23.
GrygielJJ (2006) Great Powers and Geopolitical Change. Baltimore, Maryland: JHU Press.
24.
GurevitchTHermanP (2018) The Dynamic Gravity Dataset: 1948–2016. Washington, DC: United States International Trade Comission.
25.
HägeFM (2011) Choice or circumstance? Adjusting measures of foreign policy similarity for chance agreement. Political Analysis19(3): 287–305.
26.
HewittJJ (2003) Comparing processes and international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution47(5): 669–692.
27.
IkenberryGJKupchanC (1990) Socialization and hegemonic power. International Organization44(3): 283–315.
28.
KaneT (2004) Global U.S. Troop Deployment, 1950–2003. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/global-us-troop-deployment-1950-2003.
29.
KinneBJ (2018) Defense cooperation agreements and the emergence of a global security network. International Organization72(4): 799–837.
30.
KinneBJ (2020) The Defense Cooperation Dataset (DCAD). Journal of Conflict Resolution64(4): 729–755.
31.
LiskaG (1962) Nations in alliance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
32.
LongAGLeedsBA (2006) Trading for security: Military alliances and economic agreements. Journal of Peace Research43(4): 433–451.
33.
MaozZSan-AkcaB (2012) Rivalry and state support of non-state armed groups (NAGs), 1946–20011: Rivalry and state support of non-state armed groups. International Studies Quarterly56(4): 720–734.
34.
MartinG (2013) General De Gaulle’s Cold War: Challenging American Hegemony, 1963–68. Berghahn Monographs in French Studies. New York: Berghahn Books.
35.
McManusRNiemanM (2019) Identifying the level of Major power support signaled for protégés: A latent measure approach. Journal of Peace Research56(3): 364–378.
36.
MorgenthauHJ (1972) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
37.
MorrowJD (1991) Alliances and asymmetry: An alternative to the capability aggregation model of alliances. American Journal of Political Science35(4): 904–933.
38.
OlsonMZeckhauserR (1966) An economic theory of alliances. The Review of Economics and Statistics48(3): 266–279.
39.
OnealJRRussettB (1999) The Kantian peace: The pacific benefits of democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885–1992. World Politics52(1): 1–37.
40.
OwenJM (2010) The Clash of Ideas in World Politics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
41.
PalmerGD’OrazioVKenwickM, et al. (2015) The MID4 dataset, 2002–2010: Procedures, coding rules and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science32(2): 222–242.
QuinnKM (2004) Bayesian Factor Analysis for Mixed Ordinal and Continuous Responses. Political Analysis12(4): 338–353.
44.
RussettB (1985) The mysterious case of vanishing hegemony; Or is Mark Twain really dead?International Organization39(2): 207–231.
45.
San-AkcaB (2016) States in Disguise: Causes of State Support for Rebel Groups. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
SenSR (2017) No ‘hand-in-hand’ for India and China, bilateral military exercise stands suspended. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/military-exercise-china-hand-in-hand-doklam-standoff-peoples-liberation-army-indian-army-1056166-2017-10-02
47.
SignorinoCSRitterJM (1999) Tau-b or not tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly43(1): 115–144.
48.
SimonMWGartzkeE (1996) Political system similarity and the choice of allies: Do democracies flock together, or do opposites attract?Journal of Conflict Resolution40(4): 617–635.
49.
VoetenE (2000) Clashes in the assembly. International Organization54(2): 185–215.
50.
VoetenE (2013) Data and analyses of voting in the united nations general assembly. In: ReinaldaB (ed) Routledge Handbook of International Organization. New York, NY: Routledge, 54–66.
51.
WaltSM (1985) Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security9: 3–43.
52.
WaltzKN (1979) Theory of international politics. Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press.
53.
WangDGuJ (2018) VASC: Dimension reduction and visualization of single-cell RNA-Seq data by deep variational autoencoder. Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics16(5): 320–331.
54.
WangJZouQLinC (2022) A comparison of deep learning-based pre-processing and clustering approaches for single-cell RNA sequencing data. Briefings in Bioinformatics23(1): 1–19.
55.
White House (2019) Statement by the Press Secretary. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-64/
56.
WolfordS (2014) Power, preferences, and balancing: The durability of coalitions and the expansion of Conflict1: Power, Preferences, and Balancing. International Studies Quarterly58(1): 146–157.
57.
WolfordS (2015) The Politics of Military Coalitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
