INTRODUCTION

In previous chapters the characteristics of dictators and dictatorial regimes have been discussed as well as the responsibility of the international community to stop the worst atrocities that are perpetrated by them. When a dictator manifestly fails to protect his population from atrocity crimes or is even complicit in their perpetration, the international community may intervene through the UN Security Council to implement the third pillar of the responsibility to protect. Foreign policy mechanisms that may be used to persuade a dictatorial leader to stop the perpetration of crimes are diverse, and range from diplomacy to sanctions and sometimes even military intervention. These mechanisms are not only intended to emphasize the importance of respect for human rights but also aimed at changing the policies of perpetrating countries (Luard, 1980, p. 579). As Tetlock specifies ‘foreign policy is fundamentally social influence: The ultimate objective is to persuade other nations to act in desired ways’ (Tetlock, 1983, p. 69). Although often the international community fails to stop the crimes (LeBor, 2006), the domestic policies of dictators might be impacted by the actions of the international community or other states depending on whether the leader will be responsive to the foreign policy mechanisms and modify his tactics that bring about the suffering. In some instances, this means coercing the target state to change its behaviour by threatening the adversary with enough pain that this would outweigh the benefits of resisting the demands for change (Byman & Waxman, 1999, p. 107). That the decision-making process would be done in such a rational manner, however, has been challenged by scholars who pointed to the inability of human beings to live up to the assumptions underlying perfect rationality and has raised issues relating to the level of analysis that is being investigated (a.o. Stein, 2012). The question becomes whether rationality is attributed to the state or to the individual and what the implications of choosing a particular level of analysis are for examining a state's foreign policy (Carlsnaes, 2012). What determines the reaction of a state to foreign policy measures directed at it, and what is the role of the individual therein?