OSIPP Discussion Paper : DP-2022-E-001

The Post-Exile Fate of Leaders: A New Dataset
March 9, 2022
Masanori Kubota*
Specially Appointed Assistant Professor, Osaka School of International Public Policy

Kaoru Hidaka
Assistant Professor, the Graduate School of Law, Tohoku University

Taku Yukawa
Associate Professor, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo【Keywords】exile, post-exit fate, punishment, dataset【Abstract】With the recent development of datasets on political leaders, there has beena growing body of research on the punishment of leaders, such as exile, imprisonment,
and execution. Unlike execution and imprisonment, however, exile does not necessarily
lead to a disastrous end. Nevertheless, previous studies have focused only on the treatmentof leaders at the point of loss of power and have lumped exile together with otherpunishments. In other words, prior studies have focused too short a time span as the fateof leaders. Therefore, by constructing a unique dataset that tracks the fate of exiled leaders
over a longer period of time, this study systematically and comprehensively investigatedwhether exile actually serves as punishment or not. Specifically, it examined whether
exiled leaders were able to return to their home countries, if so, how they were treatedafter their return, and whether their lives in exile were favorable. The analysis revealed
that the fates of the leaders after exile were extremely diverse and that exile does not
generally function as punishment. Thus, existing studies that have lumped exile together
with other punishments need to be significantly revised.

*Corresponding Author. Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University, Address: 1-31 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka,
Osaka 560-0043, JAPAN. Email: m-kubota@osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp
Financial support from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 21J00997, 20J12335, 19K13627)
is gratefully acknowledged.

The Post-Exile Fate of Leaders: A New Dataset
Masanori Kubota
Kaoru Hidaka
Taku Yukawa

Abstract
With the recent development of datasets on political leaders, there has been a growing body of researchon the punishment of leaders, such as exile, imprisonment, and execution. Unlike execution andimprisonment, however, exile does not necessarily lead to a disastrous end. Nevertheless, previous
studies have focused only on the treatment of leaders at the point of loss of power and have lumped
exile together with other punishments. In other words, prior studies have focused too short a time spanas the fate of leaders. Therefore, by constructing a unique dataset that tracks the fate of exiled leaders
over a longer period of time, this study systematically and comprehensively investigated whether exile
actually serves as punishment or not. Specifically, it examined whether exiled leaders were able toreturn to their home countries, if so, how they were treated after their return, and whether their lives
in exile were favorable. The analysis revealed that the fates of the leaders after exile were extremely
diverse and that exile does not generally function as punishment. Thus, existing studies that havelumped exile together with other punishments need to be significantly revised.

Introduction
There are a variety of post-tenure fates awaiting a leader when they lose their power after a coupd’état or popular uprising. There is a dataset—a well-known classification—in which the post-tenurefates of leaders have been subjected to coding wherein their fates have been separated into suffering
no negative consequences at all (i.e., “OK”) or punishments such as exile, imprisonment, andexecution (Goemans et al. 2009).
These post-tenure fates attracted attention when it was realized that they are variables that explaina variety of political phenomena. In conventional political science, it is assumed that the priority ofleaders is maintaining their powers; correspondingly, a variety of theories have been created based on
this assumption (Bueno de Mesquita et al. 2002; 2003). In contrast, a new concept has been proposedin which it is no longer assumed that leaders are most interested in whether they can maintain theiroffice, but rather, whether their safety can be guaranteed after they lose power. This is because it has
been pointed out that many political phenomena can be better explained when this premise is assumed(Goemans 2000; Chiozza and Goemans 2011; Weeks 2014).
After considering the various fates that befall leaders, we decided to focus on exile for this paper.
As mentioned above, along with imprisonment and execution, exile is generally categorized as a type1

of punishment. Accordingly, numerous quantitative analyses have coded cases with exile,
imprisonment, or execution as forms of “punishment,” indicating that most analyses group these three
together. However, when compared to imprisonment and execution, exile has been found to be clearly
different in substance from the other two in that it is not a penalty that is imposed by the nation or the
new regime. For leaders, exile is not necessarily a harsh fate; specifically, it can be viewed as either agood fate or a bad fate depending upon the actual circumstances. For instance, Makarios III of Cyprus,
who was ousted from power in a coup in 1974, was greeted “not as the former President of Cyprus but
as the elected President of Cyprus” in his exile in the United Kingdom (New York Times, July 18,1974). While in exile, he aroused the international community by appealing for a solution to the Cyprus
problem at the UN Security Council (New York Times, July 19, 1974). Subsequently, he succeeded inbringing down the military regime in his homeland that had ousted him, returning home as president
just five months after the coup. On the other hand, a clear example of a bad fate after exile is that ofZine El Abidine Ben Ali, who lost power during the Tunisian Revolution in 2011. After his downfall,
Ben Ali was denied asylum by France and later fled to Saudi Arabia, where he rarely appeared in the
media during his exile because of a ban on political activities. While in exile, he was prosecuted andsentenced to life in prison for the murder of protesters in Tunisia; ultimately, he died of cancer in
September 2019 in his exile without ever returning home. Thus, there is a great variety of “post-exile”
scenarios. In that sense, exile is greatly different from imprisonment and execution, both of which can
only be considered devastating.
Therefore, if there are many exile scenarios that lead to a good fate, then there is a need to reevaluate
the existing theory that exile should be grouped together with imprisonment and execution as formsof “punishment.” In this sense, there is academic value in elucidating the actualities of exile. In fact,
there is a need to empirically describe “the aftermath of exile.”
While previous studies on the post-tenure fate of leaders have mainly focused on the problem of thevariety of effects the post-tenure fate has on a leader’s behavior, the time span of the “post-tenure fate”
which was considered for this purpose was too short. Specifically, previous studies have only focusedon the point in time when power has been lost. In the case of execution or imprisonment, which can
only be thought of as devastating, this would not be a problem. However, if we attempt to study exile
by examining life after exile over a longer time span, then we cannot be sure that exile has continued
to function as a form of punishment. In fact, leaders who have lost power have themselves interpreted
the effects of exile over a longer time span.
Based on the above issues, we created a unique dataset regarding the post-exile period and thesubsequent fate of leaders. Furthermore, we addressed the question whether, in reality, exile works asa punishment or not. In other words, what percentage of exiles are blessed and what percentage arenot? Then, of course, the critical point in dealing with this question is what constitutes a blessed exile.
In this paper, we will attempt to measure this from several points of view, with the main axis among2them being whether the exiled leaders were able to return home after their exile. This is because it canbe objectively measured, the data on it is fairly available, and furthermore, exiled leaders often wish
to return to their countries.
The conclusion from the dataset is that the fates after exile are diverse. Apparently, in some cases
exile serves as a punishment and in others it does not. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider previous
research that has uniformly viewed exile as a punishment.

1. Exile in previous studies
Post-tenure fate research has flourished in recent years. A variety of theories are based on thepremise that leaders do not prioritize maintaining their position in office, but rather prioritize avoiding“punishments” such as exile, execution, and imprisonment after losing power. This is because one canbetter explain the behavior of leaders and the foreign policies of nations when they use this premise.
Specifically, these behaviors include whether a leader engages in armed conflict with another country(Chiozza and Goemans 2011; Debs and Goemans 2010; Frantz et al. 2014; Weeks 2014; Croco 2015),
ends a war in progress (Goemans 2000), and gives up power and progresses toward democratization(Sutter 2000).
In addition, studies in which post-tenure fate is used as the dependent variable and the factors that
determine this are investigated are also being conducted with increasing frequency (Goemans 2008;
Anderson 2010; Chiozza and Goemans 2011; Wright and Escribà-Folch 2012; Escribà-Folch 2013;
Albertus and Menaldo 2014; Albertus 2019; Radtke 2020). These have led to the identification of poor
economic performance and the length of the term of office as being among the factors which may
cause a bad fate.
Nearly without exception, these studies regard exile as a form of “punishment” along with execution
and imprisonment. In quantitative analyses as well, if any of these three occur, then the item
concerning whether a leader has been “punished” is assigned a response of “1” (i.e., “yes”).
However, simultaneously, it has been pointed out that exile is fundamentally different from the othertwo and that exile should be recognized, not as a punishment, but as a good fate. Radtke (2020) pointed
out that leaders “flee into exile in order to ensure that they do not face a worse fate: death or
imprisonment” (p. 339). In addition, Escribà-Folch (2013) pointed out that to realize a peaceful regimechange, it is necessary for an ex-ruler to go into exile and be granted asylum in another country so as
to ensure their safety (p. 162). Furthermore, Krcmaric (2018) stated that “exile provides a mechanism
for leaders, especially those facing domestic unrest, to give up power in a relatively costless manner”(p.487). However, as stated previously, even as the fundamental different nature of exile continues tobe pointed out, exile is grouped together with imprisonment and execution when actual analyses are
conducted. Indeed, no studies have conducted an empirical investigation of the aftermath of exile.
3

On the other hand, although relatively few in number, there have been studies on the concept of
exile itself that have reported highly intriguing trends as a result of their detailed analyses. For example,
Escribà-Folch and Krcmaric (2017) analyzed the kinds of countries that are selected as destinations
for exile. Their results showed that geographic distance and transnational connection between states –such as whether an alliance exists or whether a colony-imperial state relationship exists – are factorsthat determine the selection of a destination for exile. Krcmaric (2018, 2020) pointed out that thereason for a decrease in cases of exile since the latter half of the 1990s is a norm change that occurredin the international community toward seeking responsibility for human rights violations; that is, a socalled “justice cascade” has occurred. By this logic, exiles have declined since a leader can no longer
to have their safety guaranteed by going into exile in another country in the age of the justice cascade.
While this is certainly an important subject of scholarship, its focus of analysis is the time point at
which power is lost rather than the fate of the leader after exile.
In fact, as subsequent data has shown, there are leaders are subject to diverse fates after exile. For avariety of reasons, there are both “happy” exiles and those that are not. Although it is not a direct
analysis, one previous study (Krcmaric 2018; 2020) presented an important point of view on this issue.
Specifically, it dealt with the effect of human rights violations on exile. Certainly, one intuitively
understands that in a country in which large-scale human rights violations have taken place, the exile
awaiting the leader after losing power is bound to be a harsh experience.

2. Introduction to the Dataset
As part of this study, we created a dataset on the fate of certain leaders after they were exiled. The
subjects of this dataset—a total of 91 cases—were all leaders who went into exile after political
upheavals between 1970 and 2014. For the selection of these leaders, we basically relied on Archigos,
a systematic dataset on political leaders (Goemans et al. 2009).1 The dataset on exile already exists

According to Archigos, there are 85 leaders whose “post tenure fate” is “exile” and “exit” is“irregular” among those who lost their power between 1970 and 2014. Based on this, we havechecked each case in detail and have also compared them with the existing dataset on politicalchanges to determine the number of cases as follows. First, we added four cases in which “exit” iscoded “regular” by Archigos, but can be regarded as irregular leadership changes due to thetreatment by Powell and Thyne (2011), Diamond (2020), and Beissinger (2013), and the actual
political process of the cases: Yanukovych (Ukraine, 2014), Yingluck (Thailand, 2014), Compaore(Burkina Faso, 2014), and Honecker (German Democratic Republic, 1989). Next, we added threecases where the “post tenure fate” was not “exile,” but could be regarded as exile in substance:
Aristide (Haiti, 1991), Cabral (Guinea-Bissau, 1980), and Somoza (Nicaragua, 1979). Similarly, we
excluded three cases with the “post tenure fate” of “exile” that could not be considered to have been
exiles in a substantive sense: Haidalla (Mauritania 1984), Jonathan (Lesotho, 1986), and Najibullah(Afghanistan, 1992). Finally, we added two cases that are not covered by Archigos but can be
regarded as irregular forms of loss of power and exile: Gary (Grenada, 1979) and Mancham(Saychelles, 1977).
1

4

(Escriba-Folch and Krcmaric 2017), and it mainly covers data on the country of exile. Nevertheless,in this paper we collected data on items related to their fate subsequent to their exile. Given this, we
present the specific results pertaining to each of the items in this section.
First, they can be divided into four major groups, with the first one consisting of data pertaining to
the exiled leader’s treatment and activities during their exile. In regard to the activities of the exiled
leader, we investigated whether they were able to wield some political influence over the home country
from the country of exile2 and also whether following the exile, they were able to continue as the headof whatever political party they had belonged to prior to exile. Next, we investigated whether somechange occurred in the country of exile as a method to determine whether the country of exile treatedthe exiled leader well. This was because we considered cases in which the leader was put in a positionin which they were forced to change the country of exile as it was not a “good exile.” Finally, weinvestigated whether the leader was subjected to legal action or pardoned in their own country in order
to discover the home country’s stance toward the leader after their exile.
The second group consists of data pertaining to the return of the leader to their home country after
their exile. Here, while we naturally investigated whether the leader was able to return to their homecountry and how many days it took before they could return, we also investigated whether the returnhome was allowed by the home country, it was without the permission of the home country, and if
their return was related to a change in the political regime of the home country.3 This was not simply
an investigation into whether the leader returned to their home country or not; rather, it allowed thecomprehensive collection of data pertaining to the background that enabled the leader’s return.
The third group consists of data pertaining to the leader’s activities and treatment after returning totheir home country in cases in which this was possible. Specifically, we investigated whether the leader
was able to return to a political positions such as political leader, cabinet minister, head of a party, ora similar position.
Data were collected from a variety of sources, including press materials (international and local)

Although the existence of political influence is an ambiguous concept, this paper uses thefollowing criteria to determine it. We considered a leader to have exerted political influence when
the political activities of the exiled leader led to substantive reactions by supporters in their homecountry or the new government. Examples include direct negotiations with the new government,
giving instructions to supporters in the home country to stage a coup attempt, and intervening inelections. On the other hand, exiled leaders often criticize the new government through the media orcall for an anti-government struggle; yet, if the new government or its supporters do not react to suchactions, they are excluded. In some cases, relatives of the leader remain in the home country andengage in political activities, but unless the involvement of the exiled leader himself was observed, it
was not considered a case of exerting political influence.
3 Specifically, we coded a return to the home country associated with either a change of government(with a change of leader) or a regime transition (with or without a change of leader) as “1.” That is,
if a regime transition—such as democratization—occurred, we coded the return as “1” even if theleader did not change before or after the transition. In contrast, if an election was held outside of theregime transition but the leader did not change, we coded the return as “0.”25that can be collected mainly in the Lexis/Nexis database, the Archigos codebook, research by Lentz(1994), and case-specific secondary materials.

3. Descriptive Analysis
In this section, we present an overview of the trends obtained from our dataset to show that variations
exist in their subsequent fate after exile.
3.1 Return to home country
We argue that the major factor which determines whether the exile becomes a good or a bad fate is the
propriety of returning home. This is because the issue of returning to the home country is important toexiled leaders and at the same time, it allows the researcher to observe the issue in a comprehensive
manner. For example, Pascal Lissouba, who was expelled from Republic of the Congo in 1997, hadlonged to return to his homeland for more than 22 years before dying in exile in France. In contrast,
Thailand’s Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan, ousted in the 1991 coup d’état and exiled to Britain,
successfully returned home just five months later. Naturally, there are cases in which an exiled leader
has no desire to return to their home country, such as Ali Nasir Muhammad Husani of South Yemen
and Jorge Serrano Elías of Guatemala. However, there are very few cases of this nature. So, in thisregard, we discuss what factors influence whether a leader can return home after exile or whether they
can return home after only a short time in exile.
Figure 1a represents the proportion of exiled leaders who returned home out of 91 leaders who were
exiled from 1970 to 2014—the period covered in this paper. As this data shows, 58% of them returnedto their home country. If we exclude those still in exile, 68% of them returned to their home country
and 32% died in exile as Figure 1b shows.4 We tend to think of “exile” as implying that a leader isnearly permanently barred from returning to their home country. However, in reality, it has been foundthat well over half of those who go into exile return to their home countries. In this sense, exile is far
less of a “punishment” than is conventionally imagined.

In fact, only two of those who died in exile were assassinated; Juan José Torres, ousted from
Bolivia in a coup in 1971 and purged in Peru under Operation Condor; and Somoza, exiled toParaguay after the Nicaraguan Revolution and killed in Operation Reptile.
4

6

Figure 1a Exiled leaders who returned home

Figure 1b Exiled leaders who returned home except for those still in exile
Next, if we limit our investigation to the 53 leaders who returned to their home countries after exile,
we can represent it with Figure 2a. This presentation is a scatter plot diagram that shows the years of
exile on the horizontal axis and the number of days until their return to their home country on thevertical axis, which allows for better visualization of the distribution of data. The average amount ofdays is 2,416, and the standard deviation is 2,303. The shortest is one day in the case of Ovando Candia,
who defected to the Argentine embassy for a day after the 1970 coup in Bolivia, and the longest is thecase of Goukouni Oueddei of Chad, who fled to Libya after being defeated by rebels in 1982, spending
9936 days in exile. Thus, it is evident that even among the cases in which repatriation was successful,there was a wide variation in the number of days it took to return.

7

Figure 2a Number of days for exiled leaders to return to home
In addition, Figure 2b shows a similar scatter plot with the degree of human rights abuses committed
by exiled leaders during their tenure on the vertical axis.5 Generally, existing studies have pointed out
the impact of human rights abuses by exiled leaders during their office on their exile. Therefore, wecreated this plot in order to confirm the relationship between the two; notably, we can also say there
are numerous variations in the plot. In other words, there is no indication that leaders who have notviolated human rights to any significant degree are more likely to go into exile, or that the degree ofhuman rights violations during the tenure of exiled leaders has decreased since the late 1990s, as
previous studies have suggested (Krcmatic 2020).

The data on human rights violations were taken from the Political Terror Scale (PTS), a
representative dataset; while the PTS has several indicators, this paper uses the PTS-S (PTS: State
Department), which has the fewest number of missing values. It quantifies the degree of humanrights violations on a 5-point scale from 1 to 5 (5 being the worst and the lower the number, thebetter). Shown in Figure 2a are the average values of each leader’s score during his/her tenure.
58Figure 2b Degree of human rights abuses by exiled leaders while in office
Furthermore, we investigated the proportion of the way to return home as a supplement. Accordingly,
Figure 3 shows that more than 70% of returned leaders could return home with permission from their
homeland. In other words, after exile, it would be difficult for a leader to return home unless they areallowed by their home country.

Figure 3 Return to home with permission
3.2 Treatment after return
Whether or not exile can be called a good fate will depend not only on whether exiled leaders wereable to return home as well as how they were treated after their return. Figure 4 shows the result of
our investigation of the post-return treatment of leaders. It indicates that 58% of these leaders werereinstated in public offices, and an additional 19% of them were reappointed to heads of state out of a
total of 53.
For example, Nino Vieira, the Guinea-Bissau president, is the one of reappointed leaders. Vieira,9

who rose to power in 1980, was exiled to Portugal in May 1999 after being defeated in a civil war(BBC News, May 8, 1999). The Bissau-Guinean Congress enacted a law that granted amnesty to Vieira
in March 2005; given this, Vieira returned home two months later. Subsequently, Vieira then ran for
and won the presidential election in June 2005 and was eventually reappointed to the head of state.
This shows that it is not unusual that exiled leaders come back to public office after exile even if
they were once forced into exile. As for this point, the tendency in our dataset also amends the harsh
image of exile in general.

Figure 4a Reinstated in public offices

Figure 4b Reappointed to the head of state
3.3 Life in exile
In the end, we intend to show that styles of exile are diverse during the exile. In this regard, Figure 5
shows the proportion of exiled leaders who exerted political influence during the exile or not. Our
dataset also identifies that almost half of the leaders wielded their political influences from their hostcountries.
For instance, Francois Bozize, the president of the Central Africa Republic, was the exiled leader
10who wielded influence on his homeland. Bozize was ousted by opposition forces in the 2004 civil war,
then he was later exiled to Benin. In due course, Bozize put pressure on the homeland government topermit his return; hence, he formed a political organization in Benin and cooperated with regional
leaders in his homeland.
In addition—as shown in Figure 6—it can be assumed whether the exiled leaders exerted theirinfluences, thereby confirming if they continued to be heads of political parties after they were exiled.
The chart indicates that one-quarter of exiled leaders remained as the heads of their political parties.

Figure 5 Exerting influence

Figure 6 Remained as the heads of their political parties
Moreover, we can gauge whether the exile was a blessing or not from other perspectives, except for
the influence exerted. The perspectives are indicated in Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9. Accordingly,
Figure 7 shows the proportion of the exiled leaders who were prosecuted in their homelands. The
exiled leaders can hardly return to their homeland if they are prosecuted. We expect, given thisindicator, this makes life in exile pitiable. We can then determine only one-third of exiled leaders wereprosecuted in their exile.
11

Figure 7 Prosecuted in home country
On the contrary to the prosecution, granting amnesty leads the exiled leaders to come back to their
homeland, which means good fate. Figure 8 shows whether the exiled leaders were granted amnesty
or not. Notably, 18% of exiled leaders were pardoned by their homeland government.

Figure 8 Granted amnesty
Lastly, we investigated whether the exiled leader changed their destination or not. The exiled leaders
often change their host country when they are ill-treated or anxious about their life in exile. Figure 9shows the proportion of the exiled leaders who changed their host countries or not. The chart reveals
that roughly one-third of exiled leaders changed their host countries while two-thirds of them stayedin their first host country.

12

Figure 9 Change the host country

Conclusion
The existing studies have categorized exile as one of the punishments being lumped in with other fatessuch as execution—notwithstanding its heterogeneity. Moreover, the studies have featured the exile ina short time span, although they presented it as one of the post-tenure fates. This paper then actuallyconstructed the new original exile dataset.
The dataset revealed that exile cannot be a sweeping punishment; also, it is extremely varied. So,
one of our forthcoming tasks is to identify the factors which determine the diverse types of exile.

References
Albertus,

Michael.

2019.

“The

Fate

of

FormerAuthoritarian

Elitesunder

Democracy”, Journal of Conflict Resolution 63 (3): 727-759.
Albertus, Michael, and Victor Menaldo. 2014. “Dealing with dictators: Negotiated
Democratization and the Fate of Outgoing Autocrats.” International Studies

Quarterly 58 (3): 550-565.
Anderson, Lisa. 2010. “The Ex-presidents.” Journal of Democracy 21 (2): 64-78.
Beissinger, Mark, R. 2013. “The Semblance of Democratic Revolution: Coalitions in
Ukraine’s Orange Revolution,” American Political Science Review 107 (3): 574-592.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson, and Alastair
Smith. 2002. “Political Institutions, Policy Choice and the Survival of Leaders.”

British Journal of Political Science 32 (4): 559-590.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, and Randolph M. Siverson. 2003. The Logicof Political Survival. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press.
Chiozza, Giacomo, and Hein E. Goemans. (2011). Leaders and International Conflict.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13

Croco, Sarah E. 2015. Peace at What Price? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Debs, Alexandre, and Hein E. Goemans. 2010. “Regime Type, the Fate of Leaders, andWar. American Political Science Review 104 (3): 430-445.
Diamond, Larry 2021. “Democratic regression in comparative perspective: Scope,methods, and causes.” Democratization 28 (1), 22-42.
Escribà-Folch, Abel. 2013. “Accountable for What? Regime Types, Performance, and theFate of Outgoing Dictators, 1946–2004.” Democratization 20 (1): 160-185.
Escribà-Folch, Abel, and Daniel Krcmaric. 2017. “Dictators in Exile: Explaining the
Destinations of Ex-rulers.” The Journal of Politics 79 (2): 560-575.
Frantz, Erica, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, and Natasha Ezrow. 2014. “Autocratic Fate: How
Leaders' Post-Tenure Expectations Influence the Behavior of Dictatorships.” Journalof Diplomacy and International Relations 15 (1): 39-50.
Gibney, Mark, Linda Cornett, Reed Wood, Peter Haschke, Daniel Arnon, Attilio Pisanò,Gray Barrett, and Baekkwan Park. 2021. The Political Terror Scale 1976-2020. Date
Retrieved, from the Political Terror Scale website: http://www.politicalterrorscale.org.
Goemans, Hein E. 2000. War and Punishment. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
Goemans, Hein E. 2008. “Which Way out? The Manner and Consequences of Losing
Office.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (6): 771-794.
Goemans, Henk E., Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, and Giacomo Chiozza. 2009. “Introducing
Archigos: A Dataset of Political Leaders.” Journal of Peace research 46(2): 269-283.
Kandil H. 2012. Soldiers, Spies and Statesmen. Egypt’s Road to Revolt. Brooklyn, NY:
Verso.
Krcmaric, Daniel. 2018. “Should I Stay or Should I Go? Leaders, Exile, and theDilemmas of International Justice.” American Journal of Political Science 62(2): 486498.
Krcmaric, Daniel. 2020 The Justice Dilemma: Leaders and Exile in an Era of

Accountability. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Marinov, Nikolay and Hein Goeman (2014). "Coups and Democracy", British Journal of

Political Science 44(4), pp.799-825.
McFaul, M. (2004). Democracy promotion as a world value. The Washington

Quarterly, 28(1), 147-163.
Powell, JM and CL Thyne. 2011. “Global instances of coups from 1950 to 2010: A newdataset.” Journal of Peace Research 48 (2), 249-259.
Radtke, Mitchell T. 2020. “Why Kill Deposed Leaders? Regime Types and Post-tenure
Fates.” Foreign Policy Analysis 16(3): 332-352.
14

Shannon, Megan, Thyne, Clayton, Hayden, Sarah. and Dugan, Amanda (2015) "TheInternational Community's Reaction to Coups" Foreign Policy Analysis 11(4), pp.363376.
Svolik M. 2012. The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Sutter, Daniel. 2000. “The Transition from Authoritarian Rule: A Game Theoretic
Approach.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 12(1): 67-89.
Weeks, Jessica L. P. 2014. Dictators at War and Peace. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Wright, Joseph, and Abel Escribà-Folch. 2012. “Authoritarian Institutions and Regime
Survival: Transitions to Democracy and Subsequent Autocracy.” British Journal of

Political Science 42 (2): 283-309.

15