Suchergebnisse

"Crisis Behavior: Miscalculation, Escalation, and Inadvertent War" published on by Oxford University Press.

"The International Crisis Behavior Project" published on by Oxford University Press.

"International Crises Interrogated: Modeling the Escalation Process with Quantitative Methods" published on by Oxford University Press.

"Nuclear Weapons and International Conflict: Theories and Empirical Evidence" published on by Oxford University Press.

"Perfect Deterrence Theory" published on by Oxford University Press.

The effects of the US's decision to deploy a national missile defense system on arms escalation & crisis stability within the international community are studied. Analyses are conducted of the impact of the US's installation of a missile defense program on crisis stability & arms escalation in nations without missile defenses; with limited, moderate, & unregulated missile defenses; & among allied nations. For example, it is stated that creating a missile defense system will reduce crisis stability & increase arms stockpiling in nations with unregulated national missile defenses. Although deterring other nations from launching ballistic missile attacks remains a central component of US foreign policy, it is claimed that the deployment of a national missile defense system would ambiguously affect the efficacy of deterrence policy. It is suggested that establishing a national missile defense system would damage the US's strategic position as world superpower over time. J. W. Parker

"Risk Assessment: Prospect Theory and Civil–Military Affairs" published on by Oxford University Press.

Scrutinizes the international relations literatures surrounding three principal research movements that study international conflict: game theory, the democratic peace, & offense-defense theory. The development of the microfoundations of conflict, ie, crisis origins & escalation to war, in game theoretic models is examined; focus of this approach is on why actors fight when preferable peaceful settlements exist. The notion of the democratic peace centers on the observation that democracies are far less likely to war with one another than other dyads. Its establishment as stylized fact is considered before critiquing theories proposed to explain this phenomenon. Three additional approaches to explain the democratic peace are delineated, & a call is made for more hypotheses to test against the large-n sets typically analyzed as well as case studies. Offense-defense theory derives comes from the idea that war & conflict are more likely when territory is easily taken; case studies dominate this research field. Measurement of the offense-defense balance has proven problematic, & the two World Wars, key to the theory's development, are seen to pose a puzzle. Following a look at some test cases, a revision to the theory is proffered. It is contended that the democratic peace & offense-defense theory can benefit by employing game theory. J. Zendejas

"Conflict transformation does not occur smoothly or at the same pace for all parties in a struggle. One side may move more readily than the other. Some groups within each side may be hesitant and mistrustful, holding out for a better arrangement, while other groups may be eager to move toward mutual accommodation. Furthermore, conflict transformation is always multi-dimensional and occurs in different degrees among all the engaged groups. For all these reasons, transformations often advance and then fall back before advancing again. The shift away from destructive conflict toward constructive transformation may occur at different points in a conflict's course (Kriesberg 2008). It may appear at an early stage of escalation, before the conflict is waged with great destructive violence, and thus prevent further escalation. It may occur alter a crisis or violent episode, from which partisans draw back. Conflict transformation may arise after protracted extreme violence inflicting horrendous casualties. It may even begin after one side has been coercively defeated, but where the adversaries establish a new relationship that is acceptable enough to the opposing sides so that neither resorts again to severe violence in order to change the relationship. In addition to elaborating on the phenomenon of conflict transformation, this chapter considers how people relate to the phenomenon. They do so in two major ways: as observer / analysts and as engaged persons, whether as partisans or as intermediaries. The field of conflict transformation is generally perceived to include studying how destructive conflicts change and become relatively constructive and also how people conduct themselves so as to foster such changes (Kriesberg 2009a). Accordingly, teachers and researchers of conflict transformation and also mediators and partisans who are consciously trying to help transform conflicts are all workers in the field. The field may also be conceived even more broadly: as a set of ideas and practices that are discerned and sometimes implemented. Understood this way, some people may perform tasks that are part of this field without thinking of themselves as doing so. They may include farseeing diplomats, researchers of basic social conflict processes, public intellectuals promoting particular policies, members of social movement organizations opposing government policies, and at times traditional mediators and partisans. Conversely, self-identified conflict resolvers may draw from the experience of these persons and groups to enrich and broaden the field of constructive conflict transformation. There can be tensions between these two conceptions of the field, defined in terms of people who identify themselves as belonging to the field or defined in terms of the particular ideas and practices that are used. However, the two conceptions can complement each other, as discussed in this chapter. The first conception fosters reflection and integration of the ideas and practices of conflict transformation, placing them into a broader context. The second conception fosters the diffusion of the ideas and practices and their implementation in everyday practice. To limit the field to only one of these conceptions would unduly constrict it and constrain its potential growth and value. But to simply merge them can have unwanted consequences. The rest of this chapter is divided into four sections: the field's basic concepts, its achievements, its major issues and challenges, and ways to advance it. These matters are discussed as they apply to both conceptualizations." (excerpt)