Paul Fritz

Associate Professor of Political Science Hofstra University

  • Long Island NY

Professor Fritz specializes in international relations, with concentrations on international security and US foreign and defense policy.

Contact

Hofstra University

View more experts managed by Hofstra University

Spotlight

1 min

Trump and Zelenskyy Clash in the Oval Office

Dr. Paul Fritz, associate professor of political science, was featured in a Fox 5 WNYW-TV news segment about the tense exchange between President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy inside the Oval Office.

Paul Fritz

Social

Biography

Paul Fritz (B.A. University of Dayton, 1997; Ph.D. Ohio State University, 2006) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science. Dr. Fritz specializes in international politics, security studies, international organization, and U.S. foreign and defense policy. Dr. Fritz has published in the Journal of Politics, International Interactions, Foreign Policy Analysis and other venues on alliance formation, democratic imposition, and UN Security Council reform, among other issues. He also co-edited a volume on the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Currently, Dr. Fritz’s main research project examines how defeated states respond to war-ending settlements, with application to Russia in the post-Cold War era.

Dr. Fritz teaches International Politics, American Foreign Policy, Technology and Defense Policy, Terrorism in World Politics, Nuclear Weapons and International Politics and other courses. He received the Teacher of the Year award for the Kalikow School of Government, Public Policy, and International Affairs in 2019 and Hofstra University's Mentor of the Year award in 2016.

Industry Expertise

Education/Learning

Areas of Expertise

Foreign Policy
Political Science
Terrorism
International Security
International Relations

Education

Ohio State University

Ph. D.

Political Science

2006

Ohio State University

M.A.

Political Science

2002

University of Dayton

B.A.

Political Science

1997

Media Appearances

Israel-Hamas War: Answers to Questions about the Mideast Conflict

Newsday  print

2023-10-15

Dr. Paul Fritz was interviewed by Newsday about the Israel-Hamas war and the history of conflict in that region.

Dr. Fritz discussed how Hamas’ aim in the attacks on Israel may not have been military victory but prevention of the normalization of relations with some of the country’s Arab neighbors, including Saudi Arabia.

View More

Trump at the G20 Summit in Argentina

Fios 1 News  online

2018-12-02

Associate Professor of Political Science Paul Fritz, PhD, spoke with Fios 1 News about expectations for the highly anticipated trade talks between President Trump and President Xi Jinping of China during the G20 summit.

View More

Dr. Paul Fritz on Nikki Haley Resignation

FIOS 1 News  tv

2018-10-15

Associate Professor of Political Science Paul Fritz, PhD, discusses the resignation of UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, the latest high-profile departure from the Trump administration.

View More

Show All +

Articles

Imposing Democracy to Ensure the Peace: The Role of Coercive Socialization

Foreign Policy Analysis

2015-10-01

Democratic victors hoping to protect war gains by forcing the vanquished to be free must not only overcome the problems associated with imposed democracy but also ensure continued influence over and interests in the newly democratic state. To secure this dual imperative, I argue victors must coercively socialize the vanquished state. I create a framework of coercive socialization and conduct a plausibility probe of the theory by detailing the imposition strategies the United States utilized to transform the Federal Republic of Germany into a reliable democratic partner after World War II. The findings suggest imposing democracy to ensure peace and secure interests is likely to succeed only under even more limited conditions than recent scholarship on imposed democracy allows and also lend insight into why the US effort to impose democracy on Iraq is unlikely to provide the benefits policymakers sought.

View more

THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT AND THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL: WHY BIGGER MAY BE BETTER.

White House Studies

2011
Is expansion of the United Nations Security Council (SC) in the American interest? This essay takes up the long-standing issue by focusing on how U.S. presidents utilize the SC to examine the potential costs and benefits of SC expansion. While the current administration publicly proclaims that the long-term legitimacy of the SC hinges on the body reflecting the contemporary international distribution of power, it has been hesitant to fully embrace expansion because of concerns about the efficiency and efficacy. Examining the potential costs and benefits of expansion on these issues of governance, or how the U.S. utilizes the SC to enforce the international order embodied by the UN, it appears the effects of expansion would be mixed. That is, efficiency may decrease but the efficacy of the SC could increase in some ways. Examination of the other function of the SC -- as a loose concert of great powers -- shows the potential benefits of an expanded council much clearer. Bringing rising great powers into the SC may, in the long run, perpetuate and expand the concert dynamic of the SC that has worked fairly well since 1945 in helping to stabilize great power politics. Especially in the face of potential relative decline, an American president may thus best protect U.S. foreign policy interests by fully embracing SC expansion. Because of the powerful role of the U.S. president in the SC, the essay also takes up the issue of presidential leadership and how even a daunting task like UN Charter reform could be achieved with exemplary leadership coming out of the White House.

View more

Prudence in victory: The management of defeated great powers

The Ohio State University

2006

Though there is relatively little work on how states manage victory, the conventional wisdom in international relations scholarship is that moderation in victory is the only approach that will provide post-war stability. That is, defeated states should not be restricted in the post-war era, nor should the gains made by victors be too large. Otherwise, post-war stability is jeopardized. I argue that restrictive war-ending settlements tend to provide postwar stability when there is a large postwar gap in capabilities favoring the victors and those states actively enforce the settlement. When these conditions hold, postwar stability, defined as no or only minor alterations to the settlement attempted by the vanquished nation, can follow two pathways. The first is the acceptance of the restrictive settlement by the vanquished based on simple coercion, or where the defeated state is unable to challenge the settlement and thus grudgingly endures its treatment as long as the power gap favors the victors.

View more

Show All +