Search results

Kern des Aufsatzes ist die Theorie der Kriegsursachen. Der Verfasser übt Kritik an rationalistischen Erklärungsansätzen, die von zielgerichteten Staatenverhalten ausgehen, die einen vorhandenen Konflikt zum Kriegsausbruch bzw. militärischen Gewalteinsatz führen. Die Grenzen dieses Ansatzes werden diskutiert. Ein Artikel von James Fearon (1995) wird zur Beweisführung des Autors herangezogen, daß für außenstehende Staaten und Beobachter die Faktoren, die bei rationalistischen Erklärungen zum tatsächlichen Kriegsausbruch führen, Krieg als reines Zufallsereignis ("random event") erscheinen lassen. Implikationen für die angewandte und theoretische Kriegsursachen-Forschung werden genannt. (SWP-Ebg)

At least since Thucydides, students of international relations have sought rational explanations for the advent of war. Rationalist explanations assume purposive action; states are said to make reasoned decisions about the use of force. Although rationalist explanations have proven persuasive, durable, and offer the basis for cumulative theorizing, they also imply substantial limits on what we can know about war. I show that the most general rationalist explanation for war also dictates that the onset of war is theoretically indeterminate. We cannot predict in individual cases whether states will go to war, because war is typically the consequence of variables that are unobservable ex ante, both to us as researchers and to the participants. Thinking probabilistically continues to offer the opportunity to assess international conflict empirically. However, the realization that uncertainty is necessary theoretically to motivate war is much different from recognizing that the empirical world contains a stochastic element. Accepting uncertainty as a necessary condition of war implies that all other variables—however detailed the explanation—serve to eliminate gradations of irrelevant alternatives. We can progressively refine our ability to distinguish states that may use force from those that are likely to remain at peace, but anticipating wars from a pool of states that appear willing to fight will remain problematic. For example, we may achieve considerable success in anticipating crises, but our ability to predict which crises will become wars will probably prove little better than the naive predictions of random chance. The need for uncertainty to account for war means that the same conditions thought to account for war must also exist among states not destined to fight. Otherwise, states themselves will differentiate between opponents in a way that either removes the motives for war or restores uncertainty. It has long been accepted that social processes possess an element of uncertainty, but the centrality of uncertainty to rationalist explanations for war means that the advent of war is itself stochastic. War is literally in the "error term."

Russia's cyber-enabled influence operations (CEIO) have garnered significant public, academic and policy interest. 126 million Americans were reportedly exposed to Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 US election on Facebook. Indeed, to the extent that such efforts shape political outcomes, they may prove far more consequential than other, more flamboyant forms of cyber conflict. Importantly, CEIOs highlight the human dimension of cyber conflict. Focused on 'hacking human minds' and affecting individuals behind keyboards, as opposed to hacking networked systems, CEIOs represent an emergent form of state cyber activity. Importantly, data for studying CEIOs are often publicly available. We employ semantic network analysis (SNA) to assess data seldom analyzed in cybersecurity research – the text of actual advertisements from a prominent CEIO. We examine the content, as well as the scope and scale of the Russian-orchestrated social media campaign. While often described as 'disinformation,' our analysis shows that the information utilized in the Russian CEIO was generally factually correct. Further, it appears that African Americans, not white conservatives, were the target demographic that Russia sought to influence. We conclude with speculation, based on our findings, about the likely motives for the CEIO.

Pundits debate whether conflict in cyberspace is more likely to trigger or preempt conflict in other domains. We consider a third possibility. Rather than directly complementing or substituting for traditional forms of conflict, the Internet could separately affect both virtual and kinetic dispute behavior. Specifically, we argue that a country's increasing Internet access causes it to engage in aggressive cyberspace behavior more often. At the same time, economic and social changes associated with the information age reduce the utility of pursuing more traditional forms of conflict. Cyberspace offers an attractive domain in which to shape the balance of power, interests, and information in a technological era, while territorial conquest has become somewhat anachronistic. We test our theory using an innovative estimation approach, applied to panel data on cyber versus conventional disputes. Our findings confirm this indirect substitutability between cyber and conventional conflict.

Scholars interested in researching nuclear security are increasingly expressing the fear that the "important questions" have already been answered. At the same time, recent studies highlight the potential for major limitations on the ability to conduct casual inference on nuclear proliferation in particular, suggesting perhaps that we know much less than was previously believed. Although recognizing these challenges, this article argues that there remain ample opportunities to conduct innovative scholarship on questions of nuclear security. New nuclear challenges bring fresh opportunities for the next generation of research on topics including limited nuclear war; nuclear nonproliferation diplomacy; emerging technology, weapons proliferation and strategic stability; nuclear modernization and arms races; and many other issues. More precise theory, new data, and improved methods of inference also allow researchers to revisit and possibly resolve persistent debates. Although the problems confronting research on nuclear security are serious, they can be addressed. In sum, the questions in this field are so consequential that they deserve the best available analytical attention, even if the resulting answers are not perfect.