Suchergebnisse

THE ESSAY CHALLENGES THE "GAP" THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED STATES. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT IMAGES OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT GENERATED BY ECONOMISTS USING AGGREGATE DATA ARE IN MANY CASES DISTORTED OR INCORRECT. UNDERDEVELOPMENT AND ITS PROBLEMS ARE DISCUSSED, AS ARE NEW SOLUTIONS FOR UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT.

Against the tenets of realist literature, the article argues that the main source of war in the last half-century is internally-derived, and resides in the nature of post-1945 states. Regional and temporal variations in the topography of war make suspect realist claims of state similarity and systemic explanations of war. It is not the security dilemma nor the international system, but the composition of state legitimacy and the characteristic of weak, strong, and failed states which explain war today. Regions populated by strong states, defined in terms of legitimacy, are arenas of peace, and regions of weak and failed states are a prime location of war.

OVER THE LAST CENTURY OUR FIELD HAS BORROWED EXTENSIVELY FROM THE EPISTEMELOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF HISTORIANS, NATURAL SCIENTISTS, AND VARIOUS FORMS OF POSITIVISM. POST-MODERNISM AS APPLIED TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS A REACTION TO THE EXCESSIVE CLAIMS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE "BEHAVIORAL REVOLUTION." LAPID'S ESSAY CONCISELY ENUMERATES AND EVALUATES ITS COUNTER-CLAIMS. WHERE POST-MODERNISM WILL LEAD REMAINS PROBLEMATIC. ITS STANCE OF METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL RELATIVISM AND ITS CALL FOR THE DECONSTRUCTION OF CLASSICAL AND MORE RECENT INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORIES COULD LEAD TO THE ABANDONMENT OF RIGOROUS BASES FOR EVALUATING ADDITIONS TO KNOWLEDGE, TO AN INDIFFERENCE TO THE REALITIES OF INTERNATIONAL LIFE, AND TO THE PROMOTION OF FADS. THE ESSAY DISCUSSES THE SOURCES AND VIRTUES OF THEORETICAL PLURALISM AND ARGUES THAT IN LIGHT OF THE INCREASING COMPLEXITY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, OUR FIELD WILL NECESSARILY BE CHARACTERIZED BY A MULTIPLICITY OF THEORIES. THE SEARCH FOR A SINGLE, AUTHORITATIVE THEORETICAL OR EPISTEMELOGICAL STANCE IS LIKELY TO BE HARMFUL FOR THE GENERATION OF RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD.

A distinction is drawn between internat'l disputes, tensions, & conflicts. The discussion & data concern the latter concept. A typology of behavior leading to the resolution of internat'l conflicts is delineated & illustrated with diplomatic examples. The forms of behavior analyzed are avoidance, conquest, deterrence, compromise, awards, & passive settlement. 77 internat'l conflicts, divided into 2 20-yr periods (1919-1939 & 1945-1965), are analyzed in the framework of the typology. Results indicate that the number of conflicts resolved through behavior associated with conquest & deterrence has decreased signif'ly since 1945; that the number of passive settlements has risen rapidly since the same date; & that the number of award settlements has declined from the high %O found in the 1919-1939 period. Each conflict was also classified according to the main formal procedures used in attempts at settlement: bilateral bargaining, mediation, multilateral bargaining, judicial decisions, & action by internat'l org's. Results show that, contrary to popular belief, most conflicts are not resolved through bilateral procedures, but involve action by internat'l org's. However, it was found that in terms of a ratio of settlement attempts to successful settlements, bilateral negotiations are still the most effective bargaining procedure in conflict resolution. The study concludes with an analysis of conflict resolution through judicial awards & presents some hyp's which may help to explain why gov 's are reluctant to submit conflicts to internat'l judicial agencies. AA.