Suchergebnisse

Introduction: the regional powers and security framework -- Regional security orders -- Regional powers and regional structures -- Regional leadership -- Regional custodianship -- Regional protection -- Status quo vs. revisionist orientations -- Multilateral vs. unilateral orientations -- Proactive vs. reactive orientations

In an effort to contribute to our knowledge of managing territorial disputes, I demonstrate the effects of territory on third party initiated mediation. My findings suggest that previous arguments regarding territorial disputes and mediation are too simplistic. Explaining the effects of territory without consideration of third party characteristics and interaction terms leads to a completely different set of conclusions about the nature of territorial disputes than when these two sets of variables are considered. An analysis of the two different empirical models suggests strong linkages between third party interests and territorial disputes compared to disputes over other issues.

Studies of militarized interstate dispute (MID) outcome variables have focused particularly on whether or not these disputes have resulted in war. With a few exceptions, this simple dichotomous dependent variable categorization largely ignores numerous militarized disputes with outcomes that fall short of war along with their respective settlement method. We propose that theories and findings on war might not apply to non-war disputes. This is especially true when considering approaches to conflict management. We find that: (I) the outcome of war almost always results in one side prevailing. Negotiated settlement and compromise are more likely outcomes of non-war disputes. (2) Power relations play a key role in outcomes of war but have a much-reduced impact on non-war outcomes. (3) Territorial issues are associated with dispute occurrence and war. Territorial issues, at the same time, seem to lend themselves to negotiated and compromise outcomes. (4) Ripeness occurs at the mid-severity range as opposed to lower or higher levels.

Studies of militarized interstate dispute (MID) outcome variables have focused particularly on whether these disputes have resulted in war. With a few exceptions, this simple dichotomous dependent variable categorization largely ignores numerous militarized disputes with outcomes that fall short of war along with their respective settlement method. We propose that theories & findings on war might not apply to non-war disputes. This is especially true when considering approaches to conflict management. We find that (1) the outcome of war almost always results in one side prevailing. Negotiated settlement & compromise are more likely outcomes of non-war disputes. (2) Power relations play a key role in outcomes of war but have a much-reduced impact on non-war outcomes. (3) Territorial issues are associated with dispute occurrence & war. Territorial issues, at the same time, seem to lend themselves to negotiated & compromise outcomes. (4) Ripeness occurs at the mid-severity range as opposed to lower or higher levels. 8 Tables, 43 References. Adapted from the source document.

This book presents a new theoretical framework through which to understand the role of regional powers in creating and maintaining regional security orders. As a result of the retreat of the global powers since the end of the Cold War, it has become clear that international security dynamics are less explicable without considering the regional level as a primary focus for most states. The authors contend that these dynamics, which include the identification, management and prevention of security threats, are heavily influenced by regional powers. The regional level in this text.

AbstractThis introduction to our special issue on Revisiting Regional Powers examines ways in which the study of regional powers can enhance our ability to understand the dynamic nature of the international system today. The article, first, summarizes and highlights how the study of regional powers remains relevant to the broader discipline of international relations but also indicates that there remains much to improve and investigate, for instance by more systematically including less traditional issue areas for regional power engagement, including the environment or public diplomacy, by integrating disciplines beyond IR, including sociological and linguistic approaches. In today's shifting global order, researching regional powerhood is needed for a better understanding of the emergence of order(s); by highlighting, for example, less-than-global forms of cooperation and conflict, and their often-complex simultaneities. We highlight the need to investigate forms of power beyond increases in military and economic power, but also to expand the types of actors beyond the state that we consider taking on functions of regional powerhood.

In this article we propose a framework for understanding order within Regional Security Complexes (RSCs), focused upon the importance of regional powers. We argue that there are three factors to consider in adequately explaining regional security with respect to the influence of regional powers: structure, regional power roles, and regional power orientations. The first factor emphasizes the necessary but not sufficient attributes of power and capability for understanding regional security dynamics. The last two factors stress the importance of regional power behavior as being critical to the security process. To this end we highlight three specific roles and sets of orientations that when examined in the context of structural factors, provide a clearer picture of security orders in RSCs.