Suchergebnisse

The concept of international affinity—albeit under different names—captures a central place in international relations research. This study examines how different types of affinity affect the likelihood of conflict between states. The authors discuss different types of affinities as these appear in the realist and liberal paradigms. They offer a social networks conception of structural affinity—the concept of structural equivalence—which reflects the similarity of international ties across a set of different networks. They test the hypotheses derived from these paradigms, using both existing measures of affinity and their own structural equivalence measures. Their findings suggest that (1) strategic affinity has a consistent dampening effect on the probability of dyadic conflict, (2) trade-related affinity does consistently affect the probability of dyadic conflict, and (3) intergovernmental organization-related affinity has a negative impact on conflict, mostly in the twentieth century.

International Conflict: Logic and Evidence is based on the premise that proper understanding of international conflict - a necessary prerequisite for achieving peace - can come only from logic and evidence, not from opinion and anecdote. This groundbreaking book introduces students to international conflict's key theories and empirical research. Throughout the text, author Stephen L. Quackenbush gives examples that enable readers to see the theory in real-world events, and provides the data from the most recent research. Covering the entire process of interstate war, from causes of conflict to escalation, conduct, resolution, and recurrence, the book provides readers with a fascinating, thorough study that will help them understand how international conflict works.

International relations theory has long seen the origins, conduct, & termination of war as a bargaining process. Recent formal work on these issues draws very heavily on Rubinstein's (1982) seminal analysis of the bargaining problem & the research that flowed from it. There is now what might be called a standard or canonical model of the origins of war that sees this outcome as a bargaining breakdown. This essay reviews this standard model & current efforts to extend it to the areas of (a) multilateral bargaining, which is at the heart of old issues such as balancing & bandwagoning as well as newer ones such as the role of third-party mediation; (b) the effects of domestic politics on international outcomes; (c) efforts to explicitly model intra-war bargaining; & (d) dynamic commitment problems. 3 Figures, 95 References. Adapted from the source document.

Since the end of the Cold War, scholars have increasingly tumed their attention to examining the link between depletion of renewable resources and conflict. Within this environmental security literature, academic opinion varies across a wide spectrum with some predicting a dark future of environmental "resource wars" both between and within nations, while others question the extent to which environmental variables play any role in inducing conflict. This paper builds on the findings of previous case and statistical studies and presents a cross-national, time-series multivariate analysis of the relationship between militarized international disputes and the environmental variables most commonly cited in the qualitative literature-freshwater, soil, fish, and population. These environmental variables are tested individually and in combination, while controlling for other conflict-generating factors. The general finding is that states suffering from greater levels of environmental scarcity are more likely to be involved in a militarized international dispute.

How can an escalation of conflict lead to negotiation? In this systematic study, Zartman and Faure bring together European and American scholars to examine this important topic and to define the point where the concepts and practices of escalation and negotiation meet. Political scientists, sociologists, social psychologists, and war-making and peace-making strategists, among others, examine the various forms escalation can take and relate them to conceptual advances in the analysis of negotiation. They argue that structures, crises, turning points, demands, readiness and ripeness can often define the conditions where the two concepts can meet and the authors take this opportunity to offer lessons for theory and practice. By relating negotiation to conflict escalation, two processes that have traditionally been studied separately, this book fills a significant gap in the existing knowledge and is directly relevant to the many ongoing conflicts and conflict patterns in the world today

Abstract
This article explores the attitudes of Canadian officials towards international conflict mediation and towards the potential for greater official Canadian involvement in the field. The study is based on extensive interviews with Canadian officials who have been involved in mediation at various points over a 20-year period. It finds that Canada, and particularly the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), has taken a largely ad hoc approach to its involvement in the field. Prior to the initiation of this study, there had been no attempt to develop an institutional capacity in this field within DFAIT or to keep track of the personnel involved in such experiences, much less to develop a trained cadre of such individuals. This stands in contrast to the efforts of countries that have prioritized mediation as a foreign policy activity, such as some Scandinavian countries and Switzerland. Many of those interviewed pointed to these countries as potential models for Canada in this field, but it became apparent in discussions that most of those interviewees were not necessarily well-informed as to what these countries have done; there was just a general sense that these countries do it well and that Canada could learn from them. Moreover, none of the interviewees demonstrated significant familiarity with the vast literature on mediation. Those interviewed made recommendations as to how Canada might develop its official mediation capacities so as to play a more active and focused role in this field.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Epigraph -- Contents -- Figures and Tables -- Foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Theoretical Foundations -- 3. Life Force as the Underlying Motivation -- 4. Understanding the Operational Context -- 5. Purpose, Capabilities, and Strength of Motive -- 6. Perseverance and Determination -- 7. Passion and Sacrifice -- 8. Value of Goals and Objectives -- 9. Constraints, Pressure Points, Decisive Points, and Centers of Gravity -- 10. That Which Truly Matters -- 11. The Influences of Alternatives and Pressures on Will -- 12. Balancing Advantages, Disadvantages, and the Marvelous Trinity -- 13. Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and Will -- 14. The Thinking Adversary -- 15. How to Think Critically about Will -- 16. Conclusion: A State of Continuity -- Glossary -- Bibliography -- Index -- About the Author

Governments are concerned about the dangers posed by ballistic missiles. However, there is almost no theoretical or empirical scholarship on ballistic missiles. This article presents and tests the conventional wisdom that the spread of ballistic missiles makes conflict more likely. Original data on ballistic missiles and on crisis initiation is collected, and analysis using a variety of statistical models is conducted. It is found that among all directed dyads from 1946 to 2007, potential challengers possessing ballistic missiles are significantly more likely to initiate international crises. Further, potential targets armed with ballistic missiles are significantly less likely to be challenged. Crises are less likely to escalate when targets are armed with missiles. The results are obtained after accounting for several control variables. Analysis reveals that the findings are not affected by possible endogeneity bias. The analysis also reveals complex interactive effects between ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons on the onset of international crises.

The control of man's violence against man presents to modern society its greatest problem. A capacity to deal with the most devastating type of conflict -- international war -- is crucial to human welfare and even to the survival of civilization. Nations have become interdependent in technology and economy, but world political organization is based on a system of sovereign states now divided into hostile camps armed with absolute weapons.This book is a study of the development of collective security, or international cooperative action for the maintenance of peace. The approach is based upon t

Scholars argue that institutions in democracies constrain leaders and prevent international conflict. However, many democracies specify rules of governance in times of emergency that divert substantial power to the head of state. The manipulation of these "emergency powers" provides a rational motivation for conflict. Using a novel data set of emergency provisions within democracies, I test the relationship between emergency power strength and conflict propensity using several steps to achieve causal inference, including an instrumental variable analysis that exploits the specificity of the state's constitution as a plausibly exogenous determinant of emergency power strength. I find that emergency power strength is a strong predictor of conflict onset in democracies in each test and that states with strong emergency powers are substantially more likely to enact a state of emergency due to an international conflict. I conclude with a discussion of my findings and avenues of future research using these data.