Another post from Stephen about the card at hand
Let’s apply the Chaudoin method to the Carroll evidence that has been heralded as the bringer of death for Consult:
Before doing that, let’s observe that this “piece of evidence” fails the old debate test of “claim + warrant = argument.” I feel like a novice saying this, but, there’s no warrant in that card. Also note that this is really unfair to Jamie because we’re talking about a footnote, not his actual argument. I blame the author of the post for this silliness in the first place.
1) Do the predictions logically flow from the assumptions:
No.
This footnote seems to conflate “allowing a veto” with “subservience of foreign policy to the whims of other countries.” It also seems to ignore the potential for the US to decide when to consult and when not to consult.
2) Are real world data consistent with these predictions?
No.
This footnote doesn’t mention any, so this is really a nonstarter anyways, but we could easily think of some pretty prominent examples where allowing other countries to veto foreign policy would have saved us some serious mockery. Had the US actually consulted the UN on Iraq II, Jon Stewart would be out of a job.
3) What are some more rigorous academic arguments related to the subject? (Khalilzad and a Friedman rant/op ed don’t count).
- We might check out articles by Chapman and Reiter, or Chapman alone that are about the rally round the flag effect and international effects of consultation. We might develop a better notion of “cooperation” by reading Carrubba’s “Courts and Compliance in International Institutions” etc. Ikenberry’s “After Victory” is about hegemons “smoothing” their power trends by binding themselves to particular institutions.
Here’s another quick way to apply the Chaudoin method. Ask: “Does the piece of ‘evidence’ I’m reading have all the depth of a Fox News transcript or does it actually make an argument?”
3 Comments.