Suchergebnisse

This article reexamines the democratic peace in a longitudinal fashion. We extend the democratic peace proposition beyond isolated militarized disputes or wars to longer-term interstate rivalries. Rivalries of all types are rare among democratic dyads; there is only one case of enduring rivalry between consistently democratic states, & most conflictual relationships between democracies remain confined to isolated conflict. Second, we assess the effect of regime change on rivalry behavior when a regime change precipitates or ends a jointly democratic dyad. Enduring rivalries that include both joint democratic & nondemocratic periods exhibit significantly lower dispute propensities while both rivals are democratic, although proto-rivalries show much smaller differences. Importantly, the pacifying effect of democracy appears to strengthen over time after the transition to joint democracy, which is consistent with the onset & deepening of democratic norms. Both proto & enduring rivalries show a decreasing propensity for militarized conflict within a year of the transition to joint democracy, & this propensity decreases almost to zero within five years. Our results generally confirm & extend the robust effects of the democratic peace. 4 Tables, 23 References. Adapted from the source document.

Nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges stieg die Zahl und Form von Interventionen zur Konfliktlösung im Rahmen der UNO dramatisch an. Dieses erweiterte neue Aufgabenfeld führte nicht immer zum Erfolg. Dabei wurden die unmittelbaren Fehlschläge deutlich, während die langfristigen Möglichkeiten dieser Art von internationalem Krisenmanagement noch nicht zu Tage treten konnten. UN-Interventionen scheinen sich als ineffizient erwiesen zu haben, um die Gefahr zukünftiger Konflikte zu verringern oder gar zu bannen und dies unabhängig von den Bestimmungsfaktoren des Konfliktes in seiner Vorphase und anderen Determinanten in der Konfliktkonstellation. Ebenso wenig erfolgreich waren UN-Initiativen, um vor potentielllen zukünftigen Konflikten abzuschrecken. Diese wenig überzeugenden Ergebnisse fordern einen Wechsel und ein Umdenken der UNO in ihrer Langzeitstrategie. (SWP-zss)

The end of the cold war has signaled a dramatic increase in the number and forms of United Nations (UN) intervention into ongoing conflicts. Yet, this larger UN role has not always translated into success. Short-term failures are evident, but the long-term effects of UN efforts are not readily apparent. We explore this longer-term impact by examining the incidence of recurring conflict between state dyads following a crisis. Overall, UN intervention has proved ineffective in inhibiting, delaying, or lessening the severity of future conflicts, independent of the level of violence in the precipitating crisis, the relative capabilities of the two states, the states' history of conflict, and the form of crisis outcome; nor were UN efforts successful in deterring future conflict. These sobering results suggest that changes in long-term strategy may be in order.

Two primary mechanisms for managing competitive interstate claims to maritime areas are evaluated: the creation of private ownership of maritime zones in the form of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and the creation of a global institution, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to establish standards for maritime claims and dispute resolution procedures. Analyses of maritime claims in the Western Hemisphere and Europe from 1900 to 2001 show that declared EEZs help states reach agreements over maritime conflicts in bilateral negotiations, while membership in UNCLOS prevents the outbreak of new maritime claims and promotes third-party management efforts of maritime conflicts. Neither mechanism influences the probability of militarized conflicts over maritime areas.(International Interactions (London)/ FUB)

Contentious issues are important sources of militarized conflict. This article advances an issue-based approach to world politics, focusing on disagreements over territory, maritime zones, and cross-border rivers. We characterize militarized conflict and peaceful techniques as substitutable foreign policy tools that states can adopt to resolve disagreements over issues, and we present hypotheses to account for issue management based on issue salience and recent interaction over the same issue. Empirical analyses reveal that states are more likely to use both militarized conflict and peaceful methods when the issue at stake is more salient, both when the general issue type is considered more salient and when the specific issue under contention has greater within-issue salience. Recent issue management also plays an important role, as histories of both militarized conflict and failed peaceful settlements increase pressure to take further action to settle the issue.

Wayman, F. W. ; Palmer, G.: The scientific study of armed conflict: what is to be done? - S. 1-4. Diehl, P. F.: Chasing headlines: setting the research agenda on war. - S. 5-26. Hensel, P. R.: The more things change ...: recognizing and responding to trends in armed conflict. - S. 27-53. Ray, J. L.: Does interstate war have a future? - S. 53-80. Singer, J. D.: The future practice and study of war. - S. 81-110

What Do We Know about War? reviews the research on causes of war and the conditions of peace over the past forty-five years. Leading scholars explore the critical roles of territorial disputes, alliances, arms races, rivalry, and nuclear weapons in bringing about war as well as the factors promoting peace, including democracy, norms, stable borders, and capitalist economies. Considering what has been learned about the causes of war and the conditions of peace in the ten years since the publication of the first edition, this invaluable text offers an accessible and up-to-date overview of current knowledge and an agenda for future research.