An unequivocal endorsement of an assertive and resolute approach to foreign policy by democracies in their dealings with dictatorships. Drawing on the political writings of Kant, the rationale of Churchill's anti-appeasement policy, and the most up-to-date empirical research in international relations, the author forges a rigorous decision-theoretic model to account for the international interactions between despotic and democratic regimes. The model's validity is illustrated across a broad range of historical examples, while its policy-oriented implications, are shown to have far-reaching consequences for conventional perceptions of democratic deterrence posture and the security dilemma.

An unequivocal endorsement of an assertive and resolute approach to foreign policy by democracies in their dealings with dictatorships. Drawing on the political writings of Kant, the rationale of Churchill's anti-appeasement policy, and the most up-to-date empirical research in international relations, the author forges a rigorous decision-theoretic model to account for the international interactions between despotic and democratic regimes. The model's validity is illustrated across a broad range of historical examples, while its policy-oriented implications, are shown to have far-reaching consequences for conventional perceptions of democratic deterrence posture and the security dilemma.

An unequivocal endorsement of an assertive and resolute approach to foreign policy by democracies in their dealings with dictatorships. Drawing on the political writings of Kant, the rationale of Churchill's anti-appeasement policy, and the most up-to-date empirical research in international relations, the author forges a rigorous decision-theoretic model to account for the international interactions between despotic and democratic regimes. The model's validity is illustrated across a broad range of historical examples, while its policy-oriented implications, are shown to have far-reaching consequences for conventional perceptions of democratic deterrence posture and the security dilemma.