Democracies have been divided over policies towards so-called rogue states, i.e. states whose defining feature has been the violation of international norms. Whereas some have advocated a confrontational policy, others have preferred re-integration via dialogue. This paper examines two explanations for these policy differences: Commercial liberals have argued that countries’ stance is heavily influenced by economic considerations such as dependence on strategic goods. In contrast, constructivists regards domestic cultures of control to be a main driving force of policies towards “rogue states”: Whereas countries with a retributionist culture of control tend to prefer a confrontationist approach toward “rogue states”, countries with a rehabilitative culture of control aim at reintegration via dialogue. This paper presents preliminary results of a test of the two hypotheses on the basis of an expert survey on countries’ policies towards rogue states.
