2011
DOI: 10.1177/0010836710396770
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Escalation of interstate crises of conflictual dyads

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
13
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
13
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Through this evolutionary framework, he treats the narrative of the 1996 crisis as an extension of Turkey's strategy in the Aegean instead of an isolated event. To investigate the causation of interstate crisisescalation among conflictual dyads, such as Greece and Turkey, and India and Pakistan, Suzuki and Loizides (2011) draw from an International Crisis Behavior (ICB) dataset and apply Ragin (2000) qualitative comparative analysis. They conclude that both the security dilemmas and the diversionary theory of war 5 explain crisis escalation by pinpointing cross-case patterns.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Through this evolutionary framework, he treats the narrative of the 1996 crisis as an extension of Turkey's strategy in the Aegean instead of an isolated event. To investigate the causation of interstate crisisescalation among conflictual dyads, such as Greece and Turkey, and India and Pakistan, Suzuki and Loizides (2011) draw from an International Crisis Behavior (ICB) dataset and apply Ragin (2000) qualitative comparative analysis. They conclude that both the security dilemmas and the diversionary theory of war 5 explain crisis escalation by pinpointing cross-case patterns.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, we review the literature on the strategic interaction between Greece and Turkey during the 1996 crisis. A significant number of scholars (Altman 2018;Athanassopoulou 1997;Bayar and Kotelis 2014;Dimitrakis 2008;Guner 2004;Suzuki and Loizides 2011) have enriched our understanding of Turkey's motives behind the 1996 incidents. However, at the time of writing, no academic article has been published to elucidate the undercurrents of the 2017 crisis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These competitions generally involve attempts to preserve or alter the status quo through coercive or subversive means. For example, rivals are more likely to aid the enemies of their rivals (Rudloff, Scott, and Blew 2013), form alliances against them (Sorokin 1994), engage in arms competitions with them (Rider 2013), and to fight one another than against other states (Colaresi andThompson 2002, 2005;Suzuki and Loizides 2011). Vásquez and Mansbach (1984) place interactions between states on a continuum that ranges from cooperation to conflict.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9 Comparing Greek-Turkish interstate crises to different cases, others claim that nuclear weapons and regional organizations have been important elements of possible escalation or mitigation of the conflict. 10 There are also studies that run a simulation between Greece and Turkey within a system dynamic model in order to understand why countries go to war, why internal violence occurs, and how internal and external conflicts might be interconnected or give rise to common dynamics or dilemmas. 11 Within this extensive and rather complementary ground of argumentation, the goal of our paper is to explore how the intensity of the Greco-Turkish rivalry (in the 19 th and 20 th centuries) was affected by variation in the intensity of rivalries between major powers that have political and military connections to Greece and Turkey.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%