Democratization and foreign policy change: the case of the Russian Federation

Theorists of international politics have recently observed an apparent anomaly: democracies do not seem to fight each other.See, e.g., Michael Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 80:4 (1986), pp. 1151-69; Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Review of international studies 1997-01, Vol.23 (1), p.49-74, Article S0260210597000491
1. Verfasser: KOZHEMIAKIN, ALEXANDER V.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 74
container_issue 1
container_start_page 49
container_title Review of international studies
container_volume 23
creator KOZHEMIAKIN, ALEXANDER V.
description Theorists of international politics have recently observed an apparent anomaly: democracies do not seem to fight each other.See, e.g., Michael Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 80:4 (1986), pp. 1151-69; Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, 1993); Rudolph Rummel, ‘Libertarian Propositions on Violence Between and Within Nations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29:3 (1985), pp. 419-55; David Lake, ‘Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War’, American Political Science Review, 86:1 (Mar. 1992), pp. 24-37; Clifton Morgan, ‘Democracy and War: Reflections on the Literature’, International Interactions, 18:3 (1993), pp. 197-204; John M. Owen, ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19:2 (Fall 1994), pp. 87-125. It should be emphasized, however, that some analysts question the validity of the ‘democratic peace’ argument. See, e.g., Christopher Layne, ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19:2 (Fall 1994), pp. 5-49; David Raymond Cohen, ‘Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory that “Democracies do not Go to War with Each Other”’, Review of International Studies, 20:3 (1994), pp. 207-23. For the response of the ‘democratic peace’ theorists to these criticisms, see Bruce Russett, ‘The Democratic Peace: “And Yet it Moves”’, International Security, 19:4 (Spring 1995), pp. 164-75; Bruce Russett and James Lee Ray, ‘Why the Democratic-Peace Proposition Lives’, Review of International Studies, 21:3 (1995), pp. 319-23. Increasingly part of conventional wisdom, this proposition has been mechanically converted into a policy prescription, according to which the process of democratization invariably exerts positive effects on international security. Thus, for example, in his 1994 State of the Union address President Clinton declared that, ‘the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to supprt the advance of democracy elsewhere’.‘Excerpts from President Clinton's State of the Union Message’, New York Times, 26 January 1994, p. A17. Similarly, Shimon Peres, when Israeli Foreign Minister, announced that Israel should ‘encourage’ democratization among its neighbours in order to strengthen the process of peace settlememt in the Middle East.Cited in Cohen, ‘Pacific Unions’, p. 223.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0260210597000491
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60758687</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0260210597000491</cupid><jstor_id>20097466</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>20097466</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c575t-ffa1acb778b14a271a820e8dbc2749f1a28238651c121c6bd885761c6a24b9d73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkV9LHDEUxYNUcKv9AD4IAwXxZdp7M_nbN1mrLUwpVfscMpnMOuvuZE1mQfvpm3VFiqX1IeTC-Z17D_cScojwAQHlxyugAigC1xIAmMYdMkEmdKmBsTdkspHLjb5H3qY0z4zijE3ItzO_DC7asf-VXxgKO7RFF6LvZ0OxCovePRTuxg4z_6kYb3zhbPJF6B7ry3VKvR2Kc9_6-Og-ILudXST_7unfJz_PP19Pv5T194uv09O6dFzysew6i9Y1UqoGmaUSraLgVds4Kpnu0FJFKyU4OqToRNMqxaXIlaWs0a2s9snxtu8qhru1T6NZ9sn5xcIOPqyTESC5Eup1MK-LKwT6KlgpzSuqeAZP_gsiVIIDA6oz-v4FOg_rOOTFGBSq0iAU30zGLeViSCn6zqxiv7TxIbcym9uav26bPUdbzzyNIT4bKICWTIisl1u9T6O_f9ZtvDVCVpIbcfHDiLoW1_UVN5eZr54y2GUT-3bm_4j6zxS_AT-Hu8o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1683906852</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Democratization and foreign policy change: the case of the Russian Federation</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>KOZHEMIAKIN, ALEXANDER V.</creator><creatorcontrib>KOZHEMIAKIN, ALEXANDER V.</creatorcontrib><description>Theorists of international politics have recently observed an apparent anomaly: democracies do not seem to fight each other.See, e.g., Michael Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 80:4 (1986), pp. 1151-69; Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, 1993); Rudolph Rummel, ‘Libertarian Propositions on Violence Between and Within Nations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29:3 (1985), pp. 419-55; David Lake, ‘Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War’, American Political Science Review, 86:1 (Mar. 1992), pp. 24-37; Clifton Morgan, ‘Democracy and War: Reflections on the Literature’, International Interactions, 18:3 (1993), pp. 197-204; John M. Owen, ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19:2 (Fall 1994), pp. 87-125. It should be emphasized, however, that some analysts question the validity of the ‘democratic peace’ argument. See, e.g., Christopher Layne, ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19:2 (Fall 1994), pp. 5-49; David Raymond Cohen, ‘Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory that “Democracies do not Go to War with Each Other”’, Review of International Studies, 20:3 (1994), pp. 207-23. For the response of the ‘democratic peace’ theorists to these criticisms, see Bruce Russett, ‘The Democratic Peace: “And Yet it Moves”’, International Security, 19:4 (Spring 1995), pp. 164-75; Bruce Russett and James Lee Ray, ‘Why the Democratic-Peace Proposition Lives’, Review of International Studies, 21:3 (1995), pp. 319-23. Increasingly part of conventional wisdom, this proposition has been mechanically converted into a policy prescription, according to which the process of democratization invariably exerts positive effects on international security. Thus, for example, in his 1994 State of the Union address President Clinton declared that, ‘the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to supprt the advance of democracy elsewhere’.‘Excerpts from President Clinton's State of the Union Message’, New York Times, 26 January 1994, p. A17. Similarly, Shimon Peres, when Israeli Foreign Minister, announced that Israel should ‘encourage’ democratization among its neighbours in order to strengthen the process of peace settlememt in the Middle East.Cited in Cohen, ‘Pacific Unions’, p. 223.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0260-2105</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-9044</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0260210597000491</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, etc: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Authoritarianism ; Change ; Communism ; Conservatism ; Democracy ; Democratization ; Economic crisis ; Foreign Policy ; Foreign relations ; International security ; Liberalism ; Nationalism ; Peacetime ; Political change ; Political economy ; Russia ; Russia (Federative Republic) ; Socio-economic development ; Socioeconomics ; Soviet Union</subject><ispartof>Review of international studies, 1997-01, Vol.23 (1), p.49-74, Article S0260210597000491</ispartof><rights>1997 British International Studies Association</rights><rights>Copyright 1997 British International Studies Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c575t-ffa1acb778b14a271a820e8dbc2749f1a28238651c121c6bd885761c6a24b9d73</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20097466$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0260210597000491/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,803,27865,27869,27924,27925,55628,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>KOZHEMIAKIN, ALEXANDER V.</creatorcontrib><title>Democratization and foreign policy change: the case of the Russian Federation</title><title>Review of international studies</title><addtitle>Rev. Int. Stud</addtitle><description>Theorists of international politics have recently observed an apparent anomaly: democracies do not seem to fight each other.See, e.g., Michael Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 80:4 (1986), pp. 1151-69; Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, 1993); Rudolph Rummel, ‘Libertarian Propositions on Violence Between and Within Nations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29:3 (1985), pp. 419-55; David Lake, ‘Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War’, American Political Science Review, 86:1 (Mar. 1992), pp. 24-37; Clifton Morgan, ‘Democracy and War: Reflections on the Literature’, International Interactions, 18:3 (1993), pp. 197-204; John M. Owen, ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19:2 (Fall 1994), pp. 87-125. It should be emphasized, however, that some analysts question the validity of the ‘democratic peace’ argument. See, e.g., Christopher Layne, ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19:2 (Fall 1994), pp. 5-49; David Raymond Cohen, ‘Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory that “Democracies do not Go to War with Each Other”’, Review of International Studies, 20:3 (1994), pp. 207-23. For the response of the ‘democratic peace’ theorists to these criticisms, see Bruce Russett, ‘The Democratic Peace: “And Yet it Moves”’, International Security, 19:4 (Spring 1995), pp. 164-75; Bruce Russett and James Lee Ray, ‘Why the Democratic-Peace Proposition Lives’, Review of International Studies, 21:3 (1995), pp. 319-23. Increasingly part of conventional wisdom, this proposition has been mechanically converted into a policy prescription, according to which the process of democratization invariably exerts positive effects on international security. Thus, for example, in his 1994 State of the Union address President Clinton declared that, ‘the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to supprt the advance of democracy elsewhere’.‘Excerpts from President Clinton's State of the Union Message’, New York Times, 26 January 1994, p. A17. Similarly, Shimon Peres, when Israeli Foreign Minister, announced that Israel should ‘encourage’ democratization among its neighbours in order to strengthen the process of peace settlememt in the Middle East.Cited in Cohen, ‘Pacific Unions’, p. 223.</description><subject>Authoritarianism</subject><subject>Change</subject><subject>Communism</subject><subject>Conservatism</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Democratization</subject><subject>Economic crisis</subject><subject>Foreign Policy</subject><subject>Foreign relations</subject><subject>International security</subject><subject>Liberalism</subject><subject>Nationalism</subject><subject>Peacetime</subject><subject>Political change</subject><subject>Political economy</subject><subject>Russia</subject><subject>Russia (Federative Republic)</subject><subject>Socio-economic development</subject><subject>Socioeconomics</subject><subject>Soviet Union</subject><issn>0260-2105</issn><issn>1469-9044</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkV9LHDEUxYNUcKv9AD4IAwXxZdp7M_nbN1mrLUwpVfscMpnMOuvuZE1mQfvpm3VFiqX1IeTC-Z17D_cScojwAQHlxyugAigC1xIAmMYdMkEmdKmBsTdkspHLjb5H3qY0z4zijE3ItzO_DC7asf-VXxgKO7RFF6LvZ0OxCovePRTuxg4z_6kYb3zhbPJF6B7ry3VKvR2Kc9_6-Og-ILudXST_7unfJz_PP19Pv5T194uv09O6dFzysew6i9Y1UqoGmaUSraLgVds4Kpnu0FJFKyU4OqToRNMqxaXIlaWs0a2s9snxtu8qhru1T6NZ9sn5xcIOPqyTESC5Eup1MK-LKwT6KlgpzSuqeAZP_gsiVIIDA6oz-v4FOg_rOOTFGBSq0iAU30zGLeViSCn6zqxiv7TxIbcym9uav26bPUdbzzyNIT4bKICWTIisl1u9T6O_f9ZtvDVCVpIbcfHDiLoW1_UVN5eZr54y2GUT-3bm_4j6zxS_AT-Hu8o</recordid><startdate>199701</startdate><enddate>199701</enddate><creator>KOZHEMIAKIN, ALEXANDER V.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Butterworths</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HFXKP</scope><scope>HNUUZ</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>C18</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199701</creationdate><title>Democratization and foreign policy change: the case of the Russian Federation</title><author>KOZHEMIAKIN, ALEXANDER V.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c575t-ffa1acb778b14a271a820e8dbc2749f1a28238651c121c6bd885761c6a24b9d73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Authoritarianism</topic><topic>Change</topic><topic>Communism</topic><topic>Conservatism</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Democratization</topic><topic>Economic crisis</topic><topic>Foreign Policy</topic><topic>Foreign relations</topic><topic>International security</topic><topic>Liberalism</topic><topic>Nationalism</topic><topic>Peacetime</topic><topic>Political change</topic><topic>Political economy</topic><topic>Russia</topic><topic>Russia (Federative Republic)</topic><topic>Socio-economic development</topic><topic>Socioeconomics</topic><topic>Soviet Union</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>KOZHEMIAKIN, ALEXANDER V.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 17</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 21</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Humanities Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Review of international studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>KOZHEMIAKIN, ALEXANDER V.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Democratization and foreign policy change: the case of the Russian Federation</atitle><jtitle>Review of international studies</jtitle><addtitle>Rev. Int. Stud</addtitle><date>1997-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>49</spage><epage>74</epage><pages>49-74</pages><artnum>S0260210597000491</artnum><issn>0260-2105</issn><eissn>1469-9044</eissn><abstract>Theorists of international politics have recently observed an apparent anomaly: democracies do not seem to fight each other.See, e.g., Michael Doyle, ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review, 80:4 (1986), pp. 1151-69; Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, 1993); Rudolph Rummel, ‘Libertarian Propositions on Violence Between and Within Nations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29:3 (1985), pp. 419-55; David Lake, ‘Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War’, American Political Science Review, 86:1 (Mar. 1992), pp. 24-37; Clifton Morgan, ‘Democracy and War: Reflections on the Literature’, International Interactions, 18:3 (1993), pp. 197-204; John M. Owen, ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19:2 (Fall 1994), pp. 87-125. It should be emphasized, however, that some analysts question the validity of the ‘democratic peace’ argument. See, e.g., Christopher Layne, ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19:2 (Fall 1994), pp. 5-49; David Raymond Cohen, ‘Pacific Unions: A Reappraisal of the Theory that “Democracies do not Go to War with Each Other”’, Review of International Studies, 20:3 (1994), pp. 207-23. For the response of the ‘democratic peace’ theorists to these criticisms, see Bruce Russett, ‘The Democratic Peace: “And Yet it Moves”’, International Security, 19:4 (Spring 1995), pp. 164-75; Bruce Russett and James Lee Ray, ‘Why the Democratic-Peace Proposition Lives’, Review of International Studies, 21:3 (1995), pp. 319-23. Increasingly part of conventional wisdom, this proposition has been mechanically converted into a policy prescription, according to which the process of democratization invariably exerts positive effects on international security. Thus, for example, in his 1994 State of the Union address President Clinton declared that, ‘the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to supprt the advance of democracy elsewhere’.‘Excerpts from President Clinton's State of the Union Message’, New York Times, 26 January 1994, p. A17. Similarly, Shimon Peres, when Israeli Foreign Minister, announced that Israel should ‘encourage’ democratization among its neighbours in order to strengthen the process of peace settlememt in the Middle East.Cited in Cohen, ‘Pacific Unions’, p. 223.</abstract><cop>London, etc</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0260210597000491</doi><tpages>26</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0260-2105
ispartof Review of international studies, 1997-01, Vol.23 (1), p.49-74, Article S0260210597000491
issn 0260-2105
1469-9044
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60758687
source PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Authoritarianism
Change
Communism
Conservatism
Democracy
Democratization
Economic crisis
Foreign Policy
Foreign relations
International security
Liberalism
Nationalism
Peacetime
Political change
Political economy
Russia
Russia (Federative Republic)
Socio-economic development
Socioeconomics
Soviet Union
title Democratization and foreign policy change: the case of the Russian Federation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T09%3A57%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Democratization%20and%20foreign%20policy%20change:%20the%20case%20of%20the%20Russian%20Federation&rft.jtitle=Review%20of%20international%20studies&rft.au=KOZHEMIAKIN,%20ALEXANDER%20V.&rft.date=1997-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=49&rft.epage=74&rft.pages=49-74&rft.artnum=S0260210597000491&rft.issn=0260-2105&rft.eissn=1469-9044&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0260210597000491&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E20097466%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1683906852&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0260210597000491&rft_jstor_id=20097466&rfr_iscdi=true