Suchergebnisse

The largely unanticipated end of the cold war and the consequent difficulties in explaining its demise underline the need to understand better the phenomenon of rivalries in world politics. There is, however, much more at stake than the history of the Soviet-American relationship because a respectable proportion of international conflict is embedded within the contexts of specific dyadic feuds with specific pasts and futures. To ignore these contexts may seriously distort the entire analytic undertaking of international relations. This article makes a case for identifying rivalries in terms of decision maker perceptions as opposed to the number of disputes over some period of time in which states engage. A second argument is that predominately positional and predominately spatial rivalries should be differentiated as two basic types. Finally, a third argument is advanced for categorizing positional rivalries with respect to their geopolitical milieu: dyadic, regional, global, and global-regional.

This article expands upon the traditional interstate rivalry concept by focusing on two conceptual dimensions of interstate rivalry: issues and militarization. The first dimension captures the number of distinct issues that characterize a dyadic interstate relationship, such as repeated clashes between states over border disputes, maritime zones, or cross-border rivers. The second dimension is very similar to the dispute density approach to rivalry, and captures the number of militarized incidents over specific contentious issues. The first dimension of issue rivalry is coded by identifying pairs of states with two or more (simultaneous) contentious issues. The second dimension of militarized rivalry is coded for single issues (such as a border dispute), capturing the presence of two or more militarized incidents over that issue in the past. Empirical analyses of these two new rivalry measures in the Western Hemisphere and Western Europe show some important variation in these rivalry dimensions. Issue rivals and militarized rivals are significantly more likely to employ militarized force and peaceful negotiation techniques to resolve geopolitical issues in comparison with dyads that experience contentious issues in non-rivalry settings. On the other hand, dyads characterized by issue rivalry do not experience disputes that escalate to high levels of violence, such as fatalities or wars. It is only prior militarization of a specific contentious issue that leads states down the path to war.

This article expands upon the traditional interstate rivalry concept by focusing on two conceptual dimensions of interstate rivalry: issues and militarization. The first dimension captures the number of distinct issues that characterize a dyadic interstate relationship, such as repeated clashes between states over border disputes, maritime zones, or cross-border rivers. The second dimension is very similar to the dispute density approach to rivalry, and captures the number of militarized incidents over specific contentious issues. The first dimension of issue rivalry is coded by identifying pairs of states with two or more (simultaneous) contentious issues. The second dimension of militarized rivalry is coded for single issues (such as a border dispute), capturing the presence of two or more militarized incidents over that issue in the past. Empirical analyses of these two new rivalry measures in the Western Hemisphere and Western Europe show some important variation in these rivalry dimensions. Issue rivals and militarized rivals are significantly more likely to employ militarized force and peaceful negotiation techniques to resolve geopolitical issues in comparison with dyads that experience contentious issues in non-rivalry settings. On the other hand, dyads characterized by issue rivalry do not experience disputes that escalate to high levels of violence, such as fatalities or wars. It is only prior militarization of a specific contentious issue that leads states down the path to war. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd.]

(First published in French in Dictionnaire de geopolitique, 1993, pp 1-32.) In the many cases where geopolitics is spoken of today, it is in fact a question of rivalries between powers for land & for those who live there. To understand a geopolitical problem, even in broad outline, it is no longer sufficient to refer to general causes, eg, the "East-West" conflict; relatively precise & objective information is required. To understand a geopolitical conflict or rivalry, it is not sufficient to specify & map what is at stake. The role of ideas, even mistaken ones, is crucial in geopolitics, as it is they that explain plans & that, as much as material data, determine the choice of strategies. The more freedom of expression & respect for democratic processes develop in a society, the more the authority of the state is questioned & the more demands for geopolitical autonomy multiply. Thus geopolitical issues, those where it is a question of rivalries between local, regional, or national powers over territory, are increasingly the subject of genuinely political debate among citizens. As a scientific process, geopolitics is the study of the territorial rivalries of powers & their repercussions in public opinion, with a particular attention to critical cartography & multiscale articulation. Adapted from the source document.