MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329259141 · doi:10.1177/002070201106600407

Review: Why Leaders Lie <i>The Truth About Lying in International Politics</i>

2011· article· en· W2329259141 on OpenAlexaff
Kari Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLyingTragedy (event)LamentPoliticsLawState (computer science)Order (exchange)Political scienceInternational relationsSociologyLaw and economicsPhilosophySocial scienceEconomicsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WHY LEADERS LIE The Truth About Lying in International Politics John J. Mearsheimer New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 142pp, US$21.95 doth ISBN: 978-0-19-975873-9What would be considered unacceptable behaviour in daily life finds acceptance in international politics. Most societies find murder reprehensible and punish it by law, but it remains an unfortunate and necessary by-product of statecraft. War happens. So, it seems, does lying.John Mearsheimer, famous for explaining the tragedy of competition among the great powers, adds lying to the toolkit of international statecraft. At the outset of his new book, Mearsheimer notes that it is common to assume that leaders lie all the time. This makes sense, given his every-statefor-itself view of the international system. But he ultimately concludes that lying does not happen as much we might think, even if there is a place for it in international politics. And when leaders do lie, they usually deceive their own citizens, not their international counterparts.The book begins rather provocatively by observing that, in the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein told the truth to world leaders, but the Bush administration lied - both to American voters and to American allies. Leaders often tell such lies in order to build support for what Mearsheimer calls wars of choice. But Mearsheimer is not one to lament the use of whatever means necessary to ensure state survival and so, even though he disapproves of these kinds of lies, he maintains that lying is a vital tool of statecraft and therefore is not always bad.Mearsheimer claims that leaders tell both strategic lies in order to protect national security and selfish lies in order to protect themselves or their friends. The former - lies told for the common good - are the basis of the book. There is a distinction, Mearsheimer insists, between the lies statesmen tell each other and the lies they tell their citizens. Interstate lies are simply a cost of doing business. Lies told by leaders to their citizens, however, are potentially more corrosive, because they can backfire and corrupt domestic political and social life.International lying might seem quite common, especially in conditions of global anarchy, but Mearsheimer concludes that it is surprisingly infrequent. When leaders do lie, it is usually because they have powerful incentives to do so, regardless of the consequences. But interstate relations take place in conditions of uncertainty, so smart statesmen know that it is crucial to substantiate others' promises. When the stakes are high, trust requires verification. Leaders can sometimes trust each other blindly, but usually only when the stakes are low. But if the stakes are low, Mearsheimer asks, why not tell the truth? When there is little to be gained, why risk being labelled a liar and jeopardize one's reputation? States establish their credibility when stakes are low. When stakes are high, they put their credibility to the test.Ultimately, lying is not a big problem in international relations because all leaders appreciate that it happens in high politics. The price of lying is low because leaders cannot be expected to tell the truth when national security is at stake. Leaders know this and accept it; so should we. But in matters of low politics (which for Mearsheimer includes anything that does not affect a state's survival), the stakes are lower and so the cost of lying is higher. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207