Between indifference and coercion: Third-party intervention techniques in ongoing disputes

Corbetta, Renato

doi:10.1177/0738894214544879

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Diplomatic intervention networks are more extensive and denser than other networks. However, states in military and economic cooperative networks are more socially proximate to one another and, conversely, less proximate in antagonistic networks (Corbetta 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperative and Antagonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-2001¹

Corbetta

2012

Int Stud Q

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years (social) network approaches have been gaining ground in the field of international relations. Networks between states effectively explain patterns of international conflict and cooperation. One issue where conflict and cooperation converge-and where network analysis finds fruitful application-is the issue of third-party states' intervention in conflicts. This study investigates whether, and how, conflict expands in the international social space through the cooperative and antagonistic networks generated by states' supportive and oppositional interventions in international disputes. The study adopts a sociological theory of social units' interaction in the social space as a function of their multidimensional affinity to investigate further how such networks form. The hypotheses derived from this theoretical framework are tested using data on third-party non-neutral intervention in post-World War II militarized interstate disputes from Corbetta and Dixon (2005). Proximity in the international social space effectively predicts the creation of cooperative ties (supportive interventions) between states, while social distance predicts antagonistic ties (oppositional interventions).

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperative and Antagonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-2001¹

Corbetta

2012

Int Stud Q

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While ideally we may want to explore diplomatic interventions separately from other interventions, we do not have a sufficient number of occurrences to conduct a meaningful comparison of dualtechnique interventions involving some biased diplomatic action and dual-intervention techniques involving biased military actions. We refer the reader to Corbetta (2015) for a more extensive comparison of diplomatic joining and military joining. 13.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions

Corbetta

Melin

2017

Journal of Conflict Resolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research emphasizes the effectiveness of biased third parties and their use of leverage in resolving conflicts. However, scholars fail to explore systematically the conditions under which conflict management strategies straddle the confines between mediatory techniques and approaches more commonly associated with joining behavior. This article examines the threshold between neutral conflict management and overt joining by offering a model of third-party intervention based on the notion of international social proximity and situated within the familiar opportunity-willingness framework. Our arguments are tested with a novel combination of data on biased joining from Corbetta and Dixon and data on neutral mediatory efforts from Frazier and Dixon. Our findings reveal that the application of biased leverage and mediation is rare but salient, and asymmetrical ties between third parties and combatants explain their occurrence.

show abstract

“…In most cases, the mediator’s interest in resolving a conflict originates from its relationship with one or both conflicting parties. Since mediation services have costs, a mediator is more willing to bear these costs if it has a greater proximity to disputants (Corbetta, 2015). However, prospective mediators’ interests toward two conflicting parties are always unbalanced (Smith, 1985).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling bias: national capabilities, regime type, and international conflict mediation

Chen

2017

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing literature on bias and third-party conflict management mainly focuses on the dichotomy of whether the mediator’s bias as a whole can contribute to mediation onset and outcomes. I argue that we need more specific and disaggregated research on the mediator’s bias because the side on which a prospective mediator’s bias lies may significantly affect the likelihood of mediation onset. Why are some biased mediations initiated by third parties while others are not? By disentangling the mediator’s bias and by distinguishing between different levels of bias, I find that the likelihood of mediation onset tends to increase if the potential mediator shares a closer political relationship with a conflicting state that has greater national capabilities or that is more authoritarian than the counterparty. However, the effect is largely conditional on the levels of the mediator’s bias, where a more obvious level of bias is more likely to facilitate mediation initiation. This article advances our understanding of bias and international conflict mediation.

show abstract

Between indifference and coercion: Third-party intervention techniques in ongoing disputes

Cited by 17 publications

References 80 publications

Cooperative and Antagonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-2001¹

Cooperative and Antagonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-2001¹

Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions

Disentangling bias: national capabilities, regime type, and international conflict mediation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Between indifference and coercion: Third-party intervention techniques in ongoing disputes

Cited by 17 publications

References 80 publications

Cooperative and Antagonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-20011

Cooperative and Antagonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-20011

Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions

Disentangling bias: national capabilities, regime type, and international conflict mediation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Cooperative and Antagonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-2001¹

Cooperative and Antagonistic Networks: Multidimensional Affinity and Intervention in Ongoing Conflicts, 1946-2001¹