CPSA/ISA-Canada section on International Relations

C08(b) - Issues in War and Military Interventions

Date: May 31 | Time: 08:45am to 10:15am | Location: Classroom - CL 313 Room ID:15719

Chair/Président/Présidente : Chuck Thiessen (Coventry University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Scott Fitzsimmons (University of Limerick)

Why Canada Goes to War: A Multi-Causal Explanation of Varying Support to U.S.-led Coalition Operations: Justin Massie (Université du Québec à Montréal)
Abstract: This paper develops a multi-causal model of Canada’s decision to join, forgo, and withdraw from U.S.-led multinational operations. It builds on the literature on role theory and executive partisanship to account for variations in allies’ willingness to take part in coalition operations. It further builds on scholarship on executive autonomy and military capabilities to help explain the specific nature of military support provided by U.S. allies. The paper argues that Canada’s international roles and ideological preferences pertaining to multinational operations are constrained by their relative domestic autonomy and capability to provide military support. To illustrate the argument, the paper proposes a structured and focused comparison of the decision-making processes that led to significant variations in Canadian governments’ support to U.S.-led coalition operations. More specifically, it examines Canada’s commitment of combat troops in Kosovo and Libya, its refusal to take part in the invasion of Iraq, as well its withdrawal from combat operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The paper provides new insight into the cooperation dynamics that determine the nature and extent of allied commitments to U.S.-led military interventions.

Between Anarchy and Order: International Organizations and Wars of Choice: Jeffrey Rice (Queen's University)
Abstract: What role do international organizations have in shaping complex military operations? For both political and material reasons, multilateralism appears to be the preferred method of intervention when large-scale conflict is concerned. In keeping with this trend, states are increasingly looking towards international organizations to help them manage, facilitate, prevent, legitimize, and delegitimize conflict. These multiple, and sometimes contradictory roles, elicit a range of organizational responses. Organizations will sometimes champion their organization, at other times they may seek to resist involvement in a conflict, or will aim to shape their organization’s role in a manner that is beneficial to the organization. The ability of organizations to pursue these strategies is contingent upon the level of autonomy that they are able to exert in international politics. Drawing from primary data collected across multiple interview sites (NATO HQ, SHAPE, and the EEAS), this article will explore the varied multi-organizational responses that took place during the war in Libya. It finds that organizational autonomy is influenced by factors like institutional design and leadership qualities within the Secretariat as well as the perceived interests (and role) of the organization’s permanent staff and identifies both material and ideational sources of power. This paper challenges conventional theories of international organizations during times of war by affording international organizations a greater degree of agency and influence in the conflict-management response. It finds that organizations possess interests that are, at times, in opposition to that of their membership which can affect mission cohesion.

Minding the Gap: Understanding Women's Deployment in NATO-led Operations: Meaghan Shoemaker (Queen's University)
Abstract: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has recognized the benefit of increasing women’s representation on deployments, such as identifying early warning signs of violent conflict and extremism, and supporting international peace efforts. However, NATO has struggled to increase the number of women who deploy, with women comprising only 6.4% of soldiers deployed in 2015. This problem is inherent to other organizations like the United Nations, where 72 member states failed to deploy any women on peacekeeping missions in 2016. Determining what factors influence women’s deployment and participation is essential to meet international and national commitments, and to promote peace and stability. Despite the reality that women’s representation in military forces is increasing, there is not a proportional increase in the number of women who deploy. Ultimately, if women are not deploying, the operational benefits of increased recruitment numbers cannot be recognized. As a result, this dissertation proposal presentation will share preliminary findings responding to the question of “what are the factors that contribute to low deployment rates of women in NATO operations?” Using a feminist international relations lens, this proposal will utilize surveys and interviews with NATO personnel to probe hypotheses such as NATO countries not having “enough” women, decision makers and gatekeepers limiting women’s participation, and women soldiers self-selecting not to deploy.