Suchergebnisse

Examines the degree to which intervention has prevented or reduced the severity of conflict in 147 interstate crises; 1946-88.

Advantages and risks of multilateral security forces.

This essay assesses the utility of two prominent alternate arrangements to traditional UN peacekeeping operations, i.e., peacekeeping operations organized by regional organizations or by multinational forces not under the control or direction of an international organization. For each alternative, it describes proposed changes to existing practice and points out alleged advantages over the status quo. Each alternative is assessed to determine the existence and magnitude of those advantages as well as the conditions under which such advantages are likely. Special attention is given to how (if at all) the alternatives address the general conditions for success. Overall, despite its faults, the current mode of operation holds up rather well in comparison to the alternatives. Regional and multinational peacekeeping operations have the potential to succeed or fail for many of the same reasons that UN operations do, and they might be appropriate substitutes for the UN. Yet they also carry with them some unique risks and problems that make their applicability much more limited. Multinational operations might be best used when one or more of the disputants objects to the participation of the UN or wishes to have a major power guarantee the operation. Regional peacekeeping efforts may best when done jointly with the UN or when confined to conflicts involving small states in the region.

Most empirical research on international conflict has focused on national, dyadic, and systemic attributes to understand state behavior. Following the ideas of Vasquez & Mansbach, this study argues that scholars must take into account the issues and their salience over which states are in dispute in order to explain the onset and escalation of conflict. The article begins with a review of the most prominent data sets and models in the subfield. Most of the prominent theoretical approaches explicitly or implicitly ignore the issues in dispute. Furthermore, only a few of the available conflict data sets include issue components and even then only in a limited fashion. Several reasons for this are reviewed, including those related to realpolitik, ignoring the decision-making level of analysis, and methodological difficulties. There are some studies that do look at issues and their salience when trying to explain the incidence and escalation of international conflict. Almost uniformly, these demonstrate that foreign policy behavior varies by issue area and that states are more willing to fight for issues that they regard as important. The remaining part of the study is devoted to demonstrating how issues and their salience can affect decisions to use military conflict and discussing how these concerns might be integrated into international conflict research. Specific suggestions are offered concerning incorporating issues in research design, identifying issues, and measuring their salience.

While the conventional approach to empirical research of international relations & conflict analyzes national, dyadic, & systemic features (regime type, arms races, polarity), the alternative perspective developed here requires an examination of the issues & their relative importance. After reviewing current models of national conflict behavior, it is noted that both methodological difficulties & a neglect of the decision-making apparatus may cause issues & their salience to be overlooked. Studies that do account for the issues regularly conclude that states' policies vary according to issues, with the more important ones worthy of defending by military force. Guidelines for the analysis of issues & ranking their military importance for a revised international conflict research agenda are proposed. 56 References. Adapted from the source document.