Scholars have begun to examine the determinants of military coalition participation. Most studies pay closer attention to international (both systemic/dyadic) rather than domestic factors. While admitting the predominance of such international factors, this study claims that the domestic conditions of potential participants also determine if a state actually joins in a coalition. Specifically, domestic conditions work as suppressing factors for coalition participation. First, riots and violent domestic protests lead to a significant reduction in the probability of sending military troops for a coalition operation, because military resources cannot be deployed when they might be needed to maintain domestic order. Second, a state that is experiencing an economic recession cannot easily send its troops to a coalition operation because the domestic audience would prefer to prioritize resource allocations for domestic economic recovery.
ChiozzaGGoemansHF (2011) Leaders and International Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
DavidsonJW (2011) America’s Allies and War: Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
DaviesGAM (2002) Domestic strife and the initiation of international conflicts: A directed dyad analysis, 1950–1982. Journal of Conflict Resolution46: 672–692.
8.
FordhamBO (2002) Another look at parties, voters, and the use of force abroad. Journal of Conflict Resolution46: 572–596.
9.
GartzkeEGleditschKS (2004) Why democracies may actually be less reliable allies. American Journal of Political Science48: 775–795.
10.
HuthPAlleeT (2002) The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 347–361.
12.
KisanganiEFPickeringJ (2009) The dividends of diversion: mature democracies’ proclivity to use diversionary force and the rewards they reap from it. British Journal of Political Science39: 483–515.
13.
LakeDA (1999) Entangling Relations: American Foreign Policy in its Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
LakeDA (2009) Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15.
LeedsBADavisDR (1997) Domestic political vulnerability and international disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution41: 814–834.
16.
McDermottASkjelsbaekK (eds) (1991) The Multinational Force in Beirut, 1982–1984. Miami, FL: Florida International University Press.
17.
PiercePDoyleJGreyJ (eds) (2002) Australia’s Vietnam War. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
18.
PilsterU (2011) Are democracies the better allies? The impact of regime type on military coalition operations. International Interactions37: 55–85.
19.
PilsterUBöhmeltTTagoA (2014) Political leadership changes and the withdrawal from military coalition operations, 1946–2001. International Studies Perspectives, in press.
20.
PowellR (1999) In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
Rabe-HeskethSSkrondalA (2008) Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using STATA, 2nd edn.College Station, TX: STATA Press.
22.
ReganPMFrankRWClarkDH (2009) New datasets on political institutions and elections, 1972–2005. Conflict Management and Peace Science26: 286–304.
23.
SaidemanSAuerswaldDP (2012) Comparing caveats: Understanding the sources of national restrictions on upon NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. International Studies Quarterly56(1), 67–84.
24.
SirinCV (2011) Is it cohesion or diversion? Domestic instability and the use of force in international crises. International Political Science Review32: 303–321.
25.
StarrH (1972) War Coalitions. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
26.
TagoA (2005) Determinants of multilateralism in US use of force: State of economy, election cycle, and divided government. Journal of Peace Research42: 585–604.
27.
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: 179–202.
28.
TagoA (2008) Is there an aid-for-participation-deal?: US economic and military aid policy to coalition forces (non)participants. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific8: 379–398.
29.
TagoA (2009) When are democratic friends unreliable?: The unilateral withdrawal of troops from the coalition of the willing. Journal of Peace Research46: 187–202.
30.
TomzMWittenbergJKingG (2003) CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results, version 2.1. Stanford University, University of Wisconsin, and Harvard University, 5January. Available at http://gking.harvard.edu/
31.
VuceticS (2011) Bound to follow?: The anglosphere and U.S.-led coalitions of the willing, 1950–2001. European Journal of International Relations17: 27–49.
WivelANoeOKJ (2010) Security, profit or shadow of the past? Explaining the security strategies of microstates. Cambridge Review of International Affairs23: 429–453.
34.
WoodwardB (2004) Plan of Attack: The Road to War. New York: Simon & Schuster.
35.
YamamotoYBremerS (1980) Wider wars and restless nights: major power intervention in ongoing war. In SingerJD (ed.) The Correlates of War II: Testing Some Realpolitik Models. New York: Free Press, pp. 199–229.
