Patrick A. Mello

International Politics, Security, and Methods

Category: International Relations

  • Privatisierung in der Sicherheitspolitik

    Perspektiven der Forschung zur Privatisierung in der Sicherheitspolitik

    In der aktuellen Ausgabe der Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung (ZeFKo, 7. Jahrgang, 1. Heft) ist ein Beitrag von mir erschienen. Die Replik “Perspektiven der Forschung zur Privatisierung in der Sicherheitspolitik” auf den im selben Heft enthaltenen Artikel von Andreas Kruck “Wann und wie ist die Privatisierung von Sicherheit umkehrbar?” ist Teil eines Sonderhefts zu “Privatisierung von Sicherheit in Deutschland” der Gastherausgeberinnen Andrea Schneiker und Jutta Joachim, mit weiteren Beiträgen von Nathalie Hirschmann, Thomas Schmidt-Lux und Eva Herschinger. Das ZeFKO-Themenheft kann hier über die NOMOS eLibrary eingesehen werden (die Einleitung ist frei zugänglich, ein Preprint meines Beitrags kann hier heruntergeladen werden).

  • Interdisciplinary Conference on Role Theory and German Foreign Policy

    Tagung: Von der Zivilmacht zum Europäischen Hegemon? Bundesdeutsche außenpolitische Rollen aus geschichts- und politikwissenschaftlichen Perspektiven

    At the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, I participated in an interdisciplinary conference on role theory and German foreign policy. The two-day conference, co-organized by Klaus Brummer (International Relations) and Friedrich Kießling (Modern and Contemporary History), equally comprised contributions from historians and political scientists. The group of 20 participants included researchers from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. My own contribution focused on “Roles, Role Performance, and Public Opinion in German Security Policy”. The participants are currently working on a joint publication. The conference program can be accessed here.

  • New Podcast at Willy Brandt School

    Brandt School initiates The Bulletin Podcast series – first episode with an interview of Dr. Patrick A. Mello

    For the first episode of the new podcast series of the Willy Brandt School at the University of Erfurt, host Maria Brackin did a 30-minute interview with me on research, teaching, academia at-large, and much more. Listen to the first episode of The Bulletin Podcast here: [MP3] The Brandt School also runs a blog, which you can read using this link.

  • ISA San Francisco 2018

    59th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, 4-7 April 2018, San Francisco

    At the Annual Convention of the ISA in San Francisco, I was involved with papers in two panels. The first panel on parliaments and security policy featured articles from our a special issue of the British Journal of Politics and International Relations (co-edited with Dirk Peters). The other panel focused on the politics of multinational military operations: I also took part in a methods café and a roundtable, and served as discussant for one session of the Junior Scholar Symposium. The methods café was an ISA Innovative Panel that brought together scholars that represent diverse methods and approaches in foreign policy analysis (co-organized with Falk Ostermann). The methods café format provides an informal setting where participants can meet panelists at separate tables to discuss methods-related questions. The roundtable sponsored by the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States looked into US-Canadian relations after the first year of the Trump Administration (organized by Carolyn C. James). See the full ISA 2018 program here.

  • Parliaments in Security Policy

    BJPIR Special Issue – Parliaments in Security Policy: Involvement, Politicisation, and Influence

    The British Journal of Politics and International Relations (BJPIR) has published a Special Issue, guest edited by Patrick A. Mello and Dirk Peters: “Parliaments in Security Policy: Involvement, Politicisation, and Influence”. The special issue focuses on the pivotal democratic institution – parliament – to study legislative involvement in security matters and its effects on policy outcomes. The  contributing articles employ a diverse set of theoretical perspectives and methods to explore the role of 11 different parliamentary bodies from a broad range of contemporary Western democracies. BJPIR is a peer reviewed journal of the Political Studies Association of the UK with an Impact Factor of 1.423 (2016) and Rankings of 62/165 in Political Science and 24/86 in International Relations [More Information].

    Abstract: “While parliaments have long been neglected actors in the analysis of security policy, a research literature on the subject is growing. Current research is focused primarily on how parliaments, relying on formal legal competences, can constrain governmental policies. However, this research needs expansion in three areas. First, informal sources of parliamentary influence on security policy deserve more systematic attention as the significance of parliaments often hinges on contextual factors and individual decision-makers. Second, we still lack a systematic understanding of the effects of parliamentary involvement on security policy. Finally, the role of parliaments for the politics of security is almost completely uncharted territory. When parliaments become involved in security policy, does it foster transparency and contribute to the politicisation of security policy so that security policy becomes a ‘normal’ political issue? The article reviews current research, derives findings from the contributions to this Special Issue, and spells out their wider implications.” [Read Further]

    Introduction to the Special Issue:

    Mello, Patrick A., and Dirk Peters (2018) ‘Parliaments in Security Policy: Involvement, Politicisation, and Influence’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745684.

    Contributing Articles (in alphabetical order):

    Hegemann, Hendrik (2018) ‘Towards ‘Normal’ Politics? Security, Parliaments and the Politicisation of Intelligence Oversight in the German Bundestag’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745683.

    Kaarbo, Juliet (2018) ‘Prime Minister Leadership Style and the Role of Parliament in Security Policy’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745679.

    Kriner, Douglas L. (2018) ‘Congress, Public Opinion, and an Informal Constraint on the Commander-in-Chief’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745860.

    Lagassé, Philippe, and Patrick A. Mello (2018) ‘The Unintended Consequences of Parliamentary Involvement: Elite Collusion and Afghanistan Deployments in Canada and Germany’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745681.

    Oktay, Sibel (2018) ‘Chamber of Opportunities: Legislative Politics and Coalition Security Policy’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745680.

    Raunio, Tapio (2018) ‘Parliament as an Arena for Politicization: The Finnish Eduskunta and Crisis Management Operations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745682.

    Rosén, Guri, and Kolja Raube (2018) ‘Influence Beyond Formal Powers: The Parliamentarisation of European Union Security Policy’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117747105.

    Schade, Daniel (2018) ‘Limiting or Liberating? The Influence of Parliaments on Military Deployments in Multinational Settings’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117746918.

    Strong, James (2018) ‘The War Powers of the British Parliament: What Has Been Established and What Remains Unclear?’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745767.

    Wagner, Wolfgang (2018) ‘Is There a Parliamentary Peace? Parliamentary Veto Power and Military Interventions from Kosovo to Daesh’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117745859.

  • Sektionstagung Internationale Beziehungen

    5th Convention of the International Relations Section of the German Political Science Association (DVPW)

    At the IB-Sektionstagung, I co-organized a panel on QCA in International Relations (with Nina Guérin). I also presented  my chapter “Qualitative Comparative Analysis and the Study of Non-State Actors” from the Routledge volume Researching Non-State Actors in International Security: Theory & Practice (edited by Andreas Kruck and Andrea Schneiker). Moreover, I was elected Co-Speaker of the Foreign and Security Policy Group for the 2017-2020 term (with Klaus Brummer, Sandra Destradi, and Gordon Friedrichs). Information on the group’s activities can be found here. To sign for the group’s mailing list follow this link.

  • Two-Level Games in Foreign Policy Analysis

    Chapter Published in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

    da Conceição-Heldt, Eugénia and Patrick A. Mello (2017) Two-Level Games in Foreign Policy Analysis, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.496).

    Article Summary: “Whether in multilateral negotiations or bilateral meetings, government leaders regularly engage in “two-level games” played simultaneously at the domestic and the international level. From the two-level-games perspective, executives are seen as “chief negotiators” that are involved in some form of international negotiations for which they ultimately need to gain domestic approval at the ratification stage. This ratification requirement provides the critical link between the international and domestic level but it can be based on formal voting requirements (for instance, mandatory legislative approval in a certain policy area) or more informal ways of ratification such as measures of public opinion and public approval ratings.

    With its focus on government leaders as “gatekeepers” and central actors in international negotiations, the two-level games perspective constitutes a distinct approach in foreign policy analysis and serves to reintegrate the subfields of comparative politics and international relations. While there are similarities to a liberal perspective, two-level games emphasize that executives hold a certain degree of autonomy in their decision-making, which cannot be purely derived from their constituencies. Unlike realism, however, the approach recognizes the importance of domestic veto players and institutional constraints. Since its inception in the late 1980s, a vast literature on two-level games has evolved including refinements of its theoretical foundation and applications in various policy areas. Against this background, this essay engages with key controversies in two-level games and foreign policy analysis throughout the last three decades. The discussion is organized along six debates concerning the levels of analysis, domestic political institutions, the interaction between the domestic and international level, relevant actors, their interests and preferences, and the relationship between comparative politics and international relations. The essay concludes with some thoughts on possible future research agendas“ [Read Further]

    Keywords: bargaining, domestic politics, two-level games, interests, levels of analysis, negotiation analysis, ratification, veto players, win sets

    da Conceição-Heldt, Eugénia and Patrick A. Mello (2017) Two-Level Games in Foreign Policy Analysis, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press (DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.496).

  • Special Issue on “Parliaments and Security Policy”

    Proposal for a Special Issue on “Parliaments and Security Policy” Accepted by BJPIR

    The Editors of The British Journal of Politics and International Relations (BJPIR) have accepted a proposal for a special issue on “Parliaments and Security Policy”, guest-edited by Patrick A. Mello and Dirk Peters, to be published in early 2018. BJPIR is a peer reviewed journal of the Political Studies Association of the UK with an Impact Factor of 1.423 (2016) and Rankings of 62/165 in Political Science and 24/86 in International Relations [More Information].

    Summary: This special issue zeroes in on the pivotal democratic institution – parliament – to study legislative involvement in security matters and its effects on policy outcomes. The contributions employ a diverse set of theoretical perspectives and methods to explore the role of parliaments across a broad range of contemporary Western democracies. In doing so, they address three central questions:

    (1) What are the opportunity structures for parliamentary involvement in security policy? IR studies often view security policy as dominated by the executive and parliamentary involvement as narrowly circumscribed by constitutional rules. The contributions show that parliamentary influence on security policy is not determined by the extent of formal competences. Instead, we highlight the role of executive leadership styles, of coalition politics, and of parliamentarians’ strategies to make the case for a richer and dynamic understanding of parliaments in security policy.

    (2) Are parliaments sites of politicization of security policy? There is a widely-held belief in politics and political theory that parliamentary involvement contributes to the contestation and politicization of security decisions, which is seen by some as endangering the effectiveness of security policy and by others as a welcome challenge to executive dominance and a step towards democratization of this policy field. To examine this assumption, we provide cross-case comparisons of parliamentary politics in the security realm. We show that parliamentary involvement can affect public opinion on executive policies but that parliaments can also contribute to the de-politicization of security issues.

    (3) What is the effect of parliamentary participation in security policy? Against the background of insights about the opportunity structure for parliamentary involvement and the parliamentary politics of security, contributions address the effects on policy outcomes. In particular, we examine whether there is cross-country evidence for a “parliamentary peace” and whether parliamentary war powers entail unintended consequences that run counter to normative expectations or historical aims.

  • Parliamentary peace or partisan politics?

    Parliamentary peace or partisan politics? Democracies’ participation in the Iraq War

    Abstract: “This paper seeks to explain democracies’ military participation in the Iraq War. Prior studies have identified institutional and partisan differences as potential explanatory factors for the observed variance. The interaction of institutions and partisanship, however, has gone largely unobserved. I argue that these factors must be analyzed in conjunction: institutional constraints presume actors that fulfill their role as veto players to the executive. Likewise, partisan politics is embedded in institutional frames that enable or constrain decision-making. Hence I suggest a comparative approach that combines these factors to explain why some democracies joined the ad hoc coalition against Iraq and others did not. To investigate the interaction between institutions, partisanship and war participation I apply fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA). The analysis reveals that the conjunction of right-of-center governments with an absence of both parliamentary veto rights and constitutional restrictions was sufficient for participation in the Iraq War. In turn, for countries where the constitution requires parliamentary approval of military deployments, the distribution of preferences within the legislature proved to be decisive for military participation or non-participation.“

    Keywords: democratic peace; fuzzy sets; institutional constraints; Iraq War; QCA

    Mello, Patrick A. (2012) Parliamentary Peace or Partisan Politics? Democracies’ Participation in the Iraq War, Journal of International Relations and Development 15:3, 420-53 [More Information]

Archives