A 2016 study published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution analyzing US military interventions in the period 1981–2005 found that the US "is likely to engage in military campaigns for humanitarian reasons that focus on human rights protection 1/2
If they'd said "US govts are more likely to intervene on HR pretexts than security ones", I wouldn't have had a problem. As it is, it makes too many assumptions based on incomplete data, applies quantitative measures to qualitative factors, and draws causation from correlation.
-
-
It's a pretty respectable journal and is peer reviewed so I doubt they would publish a piece that's riddled with issues. But if you see it that way, I guess it would be up to you to point out the inconsistencies and perhaps shine a light on it.
-
Bad papers get published all the time. As for the inconsistencies, I feel I've already pointed them out: the article's authors can't claim that HR is the only constant in govt intentions when they are not privy to those intentions.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.