Suchergebnisse

When the intellectual history of international relations in-
quiry is written for our time, War and Peace in International
Rivalry may very well be seen as a seminal book. Along with
Frank Wayman, Diehl and Goertz have been at the forefront
of a major conceptual breakthrough in the way peace and war
are studied. This book is their major statement of the subject
and presents their most important findings.

It is argued that scholars should supplement the search for correlates of war with a search for factors that increase the probability of war. Territorial disputes are seen as one such factor. The analysis maps their probability of going to war and then examines the possibility of peace in light of the results. It is found that states that participate in territorial disputes have a higher probability of going to war than expected by chance. It is also found that dyads that have more than 25% of their disputes over territory have a high probability of having at least one war with each other, but those dyads that have fewer territorial disputes have a comparatively low probability of having a war with one another. Objections to the territorial explanation of war that it is not relevant to the current era or that contiguity is a more important factor are tested. Evidence shows that wars do not seem to occur because states are contiguous; rather states that have disputes over territory (whether or not they are contiguous) have a higher probability of war. Territorial disputes, however, do not make war inevitable. When major states establish rules of the game to manage their relations, the number of territorial disputes on the global agenda goes down, as does their probability of going to war. Conversely, if territorial disputes are coupled with power politics practices, like arms races, the probability of war increases.

Vaquez reviews 'System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life' by Robert Jervis.

Several analysts argue that, despite anomalies, the realist paradigm is dominant because it is more fertile than its rivals. While the ability of the realist paradigm to reformulate its theories in light of criticism accounts for its persistence, it is argued that the proliferation of emendations exposes a degenerating tendency in the paradigm's research program. This article applies Lakatos's criterion that a series of related theories must produce problemshifts that are progressive rather than degenerating to appraise the adequacy of realist-based theories on the balancing of power advanced by neotraditionalists. This research program is seen as degenerating because of (1) the protean character of its theoretical development, (2) an unwillingness to specify what constitutes the true theory, which if falsified would lead to a rejection of the paradigm, (3) a continual adoption of auxiliary propositions to explain away flaws, and (4) a dearth of strong research findings.