Foreign Overt Military Intervention in the Nuclear Age

Abstract

Competing theories about who is most responsible for the overall frequency and geographic scope of international armed conflict in the nuclear age are systematically tested against the record of states' warlike actions since World War II. These theories include the traditional view of `power politics' which assumes that intervention is practiced primarily by great powers and the vision of `nuclear paralysis' which presumes that great powers use military force infrequently compared to aggressive minor states. The frequency of foreign overt military intervention both within and outside of war is compared among all states. Analysis is based upon a new catalog of international armed conflicts, the OVERT MILITARY INTERVENTION file, that attempts to identify all foreign overt military interventions initiated since World War II. Ninety-seven states initiated 591 foreign overt military interventions within 269 international armed conflicts between 1945 and 1985. All international armed conflicts, the intervenors and their territorial targets are named in an Appendix that accompanies the article. Results provide partial support for both the power politics and nuclear paralysis perspectives but also raise questions about the adequacy of each of these views. Great powers excepting the Soviet Union have intervened more frequently than have virtually all other states, and the Soviet Union is not far behind. China, France and the United Kingdom, however, now intervene less frequently than they did in the first decades after World War II. Moreover, great powers as a group account for only a small fraction of all foreign overt military interventions, in part because nearly all but very small states intervene occasionally. Direct responsibility for the incidence and scope of contemporary international armed conflict is more diffuse than is implied by some traditional theories of power politics. At the same time, great powers employ warlike force more often than is implied by the image of nuclear paralysis.

Third World states as intervenors in ethnic conflicts: Implications for regional and international security

“…Tillema examined foreign overt m ilitary interventions from 1945±85. 16 Iran, which ranks 20th in Tillema' s list, is second overall in this com pilation. One possible explanation for Iran' s regional assertiveness could be its efforts to expand Muslim in¯uence since its revolution in 1979.…”

The Role of the UN in International Crisis Termination, 1945-1994

“…1 The data also provide a vehicle for a general model of UN intervention. Many studies focus only on intervention in civi l wars (e.g., Doyle and Sambanis, 2000;Regan, 2000) or interstate conflict (e.g., Tillema 1989). TCB data provide information on crises ranging from minor policy crises (e.g., fishing rights dispute), through internationalized civil war, to full interstate war.…”

Cold war alliance and overt military intervention, 1945–1991

“…Numbers of overt military interventions 2 are summarized from the Overt Military Intervention dataset (Tillema, 1989(Tillema, ,1991. These data include all interventions initiated by any state within any foreign state or non-self-governing territory between September 2, 1945, following Japanese surrender ending World War II, and December 31, 1991, one week after formal dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.…”

“…Overt military intervention also excludes incidents confined to small arms fire across borders, engagements among vessels at sea, or encounters among aircraft in flight. Further information about sources and methods of these data are provided in Tillema (1989Tillema ( , 1991.…”