This article addresses the question whether membership in the ‘Anglosphere’ — a grouping of English-speaking states/nations — impacts the likelihood of participation in US-led coalitions of the willing. I translate the Anglosphere into International Relations (IR) theory using a tripartite division of realism, liberalism and constructivism. In a quantitative empirical analysis of a sample of US-led military coalitions between 1950 and 2001, I find robust evidence of what can be seen as the Anglosphere effect: all else constant, English-speaking states/nations tend to be more willing to join US-led military coalitions than states/nations selected at random. I conclude with a discussion of future research avenues in the Anglosphere agenda in IR.
AbdelalRHerreraYJohnstonAI. (2006) Identity as a variable. Perspectives on Politics4(4): 695–711.
2.
AdlerEBarnettM (1998) A framework for the study of security communities. In: AlderEBarnettM (eds) Security Communities. New York: Cambridge University Press, 29–66.
3.
AronR (1968) Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New York: Praeger.
4.
AshtonNJ (2004) Anglo-American relations from World War to Cold War. Journal of Contem-porary History39(1): 117–125.
5.
BellC (1972) The special relationship. In: LeiferM (ed.) Constraints and Adjustments in British Foreign Policy. London: Allen and Unwin, 103–119.
6.
BellD (2007) The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of World Order, 1860–1900. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7.
BennettALepgoldJLepgoldDU (1997) Friends in Need: Burden-Sharing in the Gulf War. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
8.
BennettJC (2004) The Anglosphere: The Future of the English-Speaking Nations in the Internet Era. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
9.
BennettJC (2007) The Third Anglosphere Century: The English-Speaking World in an Era of Transition. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
10.
BennettSStamAC (2001) EUGene: Expected Utility Generation and Data Management Program. Version 3.2. Available at: http://eugenesoftware.org
11.
BryskAParsonsCSandholtzW (2002) After empire: National identity and post-colonial families of nations. European Journal of International Relations8(2): 267–305.
12.
BurkK (2007) Old World New World: The Story of Britain and America. London: Little, Brown.
13.
ChiozzaG (2002) Is there a clash of civilizations? Evidence from patterns of international conflict involvement, 1946–97. Journal of Peace Research39(6): 711–734.
14.
ChurchillW (2002 [1956–8]) History of the English Speaking Peoples. London: Cassell.
15.
ClaudeIJr (1966) Collective legitimization as a political function of the United Nations. International Organization20: 267–279.
16.
ConquestR (2005) Dragons of Expectation: Reality and Delusion in the Course of History. New York: Norton.
17.
CooperAFHiggottRANossalKR (1991) Bound to follow? Leadership and followership in the Gulf War. Political Studies Quarterly106(3): 391–410.
18.
CorbettaRDixonW (2004) Multilateralism, major powers and militarized disputes. Political Research Quarterly57(1): 5–14.
19.
DanchevA (2005) How strong are shared values in the transatlantic relationship?The British Journal of Politics and International Relations7(3): 429–436.
20.
DanchevA (2006) The Cold War ‘special relationship’ revisited. Diplomacy and Statecraft17(3): 579–595.
21.
DumbrellJ (2006) A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War and After. London: Macmillan.
22.
FinnemoreM (2003) The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
23.
FordhamB (2004) A very sharp sword: The influence of military capabilities on American decisions to use force. Journal of Conflict Resolution48(5): 632–656.
24.
GambleA (2003) Between Europe and America. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
25.
Garton-AshT (2004) Free World: America, Europe and the Surprising Future of the West. New York: Random House.
26.
GartzkeEGleditschKS (2004) Why democracies may actually be less reliable allies. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 775–795.
27.
GartzkeEGleditschKS (2006) Identity and conflict: Ties that bind and differences that divide. European Journal of International Relations12(1): 53–87.
28.
GartzkeEJoDJ (2002) UN General Assembly Voting V3.0. Available at: http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/ (accessed 14 April 2005).
29.
GiblerDWolfordS (2006) Alliances, then democracy: An examination of the relationship between regime type and alliance formation. Journal of Conflict Resolution50(2): 129–153.
30.
GiblerDMRiderTJ (2004) Prior commitments: Compatible interests versus capabilities in alliance behavior. International Interactions30(4): 309–329.
31.
HaglundDG (2005) Relating to the Anglosphere: Canada, ‘culture’, and the question of military intervention. Journal of Transatlantic Studies3(2): 179–198.
32.
HendersonEA (1998) The democratic peace through the lens of culture, 1920–1989. International Studies Quarterly42(3): 461–484.
33.
HendersonEATuckerR (2001) Clear and present strangers: The clash of civilizations and international conflict. International Studies Quarterly45(3): 317–338.
34.
HerrmannRIserniaPSegattiP (2009) Attachment to the nation and international relations: Dimensions of identity and their relationship to war and peace. Political Psychology30(5): 721–754.
35.
HopfT (2002) The Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
36.
HuntingtonSP (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
37.
HurdI (2007) After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power at the UN Security Council. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
HuthPK (1998) Major power intervention in international crises, 1918–1988. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(6): 744–770.
39.
KimballW (2005) Dangerously contagious? The Anglo-American special relationship. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations7(3): 437–441.
40.
KissingerH (1979) The White House Years. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
41.
KratochwilF (1982) On the notion of ‘interest’ in international relations. International Organization36(1): 1–30.
42.
KrepsS (2008) When does the mission determine the coalition? The logic of multilateral intervention and the case of Afghanistan. Security Studies17(3): 531–567.
43.
KuCJacobsonHK (2003) Democratic Accountability and the Use of Force in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
KurkiM (2008) Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
LaiBReiterD (2000) Democracy, political similarity and international alliances, 1816–1992. Journal of Conflict Resolution44(2): 203–227.
46.
LeeT (2008) Race, immigration, and the identity-to-politics link. Annual Review of Political Science11: 457–78.
47.
LeedsBA (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.
LipsonC (2003) Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
MeadWR (2007) God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
50.
MearsheimerJ (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
51.
MorrowJ (1991) Alliances and asymmetry: An alternative to the capability aggregation model of alliances. American Journal of Political Science35(4): 904–933.
52.
MorrowJD (2000) Alliances: Why write them down?American Review of Political Science3: 63–83.
53.
NewnhamR (2008) ‘Coalition of the bribed and bullied?’ US economic linkage and the Iraq War coalition. International Studies Perspectives9(2): 183–200.
54.
O’HaganJ (2002) Conceptions of the West in International Relations Thought: From Oswald Spengler to Edward Said. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
55.
PalladeY (2005) Germany and Israel in the 1990s and Beyond: Still a ‘Special Relationship’?Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
56.
PonnuruR (2003) The empire of freedom: Where the United States belongs: The Anglosphere. National Review55(5): 4–6.
57.
PouliotV (2008) The logic of practicality: A theory of practice of security communities. International Organization62(2): 257–288.
58.
ReynoldsD (2006) From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s. New York: Oxford University Press.
Risse-KappenT (1995) Cooperation Among Democracies. The European Influence on US Foreign Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
61.
RobertsA (2006) A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
62.
RousseauD (2006) Identifying Threats and Threatening Identities; the Social Construction of Realism and Liberalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
63.
RussettBOnealJ (2001) Triangular Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: WW Norton.
64.
RussettBMOnealJRCoxM (2000) Clash of civilizations, or realism and déjà vu? Some evidence. Journal of Peace Research37(5): 583–608.
65.
SchroederP (1976) Alliances 1815–1945: Weapons of power and tools of management. In: KnorrK (ed.) Historical Dimensions of National Security Problems. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 227–62.
66.
ShawT (2007) Commonwealth: Inter- and Non-State Contributions to Global Governance. London: Routledge.
67.
SignorinoCRitterJM (1999) Tau-b or not tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly43(1): 115–144.
68.
SiversonRKingJ (1980) Attributes on national alliance membership and war participation. American Journal of Political Science24: 1–15.
69.
StarrH (1972) War Coalitions. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
70.
StuartD (2004/5) NATO’s ‘Anglosphere option’. International Journal60(1): 81–90.
71.
SweeneyKKheskOMG (2005) The similarity of states: Using of S to compute dyadic interest similarity. Conflict Management and Peace Science22(2): 165–187.
72.
TagoA (2007) Why do states join US-led military coalitions? The compulsion of the coalition’s missions and legitimacy. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific7(2): 179–202.
73.
ThompsonA (2006) Coercion through IOs: The Security Council and the logic of information transmission. International Organization60(1): 1–34.
74.
VoetenE (2004) Resisting the lonely superpower: Responses of states in the United Nations to US dominance. The Journal of Politics66(3): 729–754.
75.
VoetenE (2005) The political origins of the UN Security Council’s ability to legitimize the use of force. International Organization59(4): 527–557.
76.
WaltS (1987) The Origin of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press.
77.
WeldesJ (1999) Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
78.
WendtA (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
79.
WendtA (2003) Why a world state is inevitable: Teleology and the logic of anarchy. European Journal of International Relations9(4): 491–542.
80.
WightC (2006) Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81.
YoungT-D (2003) Cooperative diffusion through cultural similarity: The postwar Anglo-Saxon experience. In: GoldmanEOEliasonLC (eds) The Diffusion of Military Technology and Ideas. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 93–113.
