Major Power Status in International Politics

Volgy, Thomas J.; Corbetta, Renato; Grant, Keith A.; Baird, Ryan G.

doi:10.1057/9780230119314_1

Cited by 41 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…70 Most quantitative empirical studies have used this definition to identify great powers. 71 Sustained military pressure is a cumulative count of the number of years during which at least one state supporter provided external support to the rebels. Direct military intervention is a binary variable that captures whether there was a third party that directly intervened on the side of the rebels.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Escalate to De-Escalate? External State Support and Governments’ Willingness to Negotiate

Karlén

2020

Studies in Conflict & Terrorism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policymakers sometimes argue that material assistance to rebels involved in a civil war can create a 'ripe moment' that is favorable for negotiations. Ripeness theory provides support for this idea. However, this notion has never been systematically assessed. This article evaluates this claim by using global data on negotiations in all intrastate armed conflicts from 1975 to 2009. Contrary to popular belief, the article demonstrates that external state support to rebel groups does not increase the prospect of negotiations. Instead, the results suggest that external support is likely to reduce the likelihood of negotiations between the warring parties, especially if the state sponsor is a great power. The study contributes to our understanding of civil war processes by demonstrating that military assistance hinders rather than promotes the onset of negotiations and by questioning the utility of ripeness theory as the most suitable framework for understanding this phenomenon.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Escalate to De-Escalate? External State Support and Governments’ Willingness to Negotiate

Karlén

2020

Studies in Conflict & Terrorism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Let us keep in mind that the main source of irrationality in international relations comes from these misperceptions and these dissonances which are all the more pernicious in that these confusions have a strategic dimension: imitation, conformism and even trickery are considered as useful for achieving international status, or quite simply for keeping it when it is threatened by global change. Status is nowadays even more important than a power which is becoming more and more powerless (Volgy et al, 2011). But status has overall a strong symbolic orientation (Linton, 1945): the competition for status is deeply impacted by the conditions of interplaying and also by the self-consciousness of each international actor.…”

Section: For An Historical Sociology Of International Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction

2020

Rethinking International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In international politics, the status inconsistent power adopts a different approach compared with status-consistent power. The status-inconsistent power pursues a more visible, and more pronounced role for its own in international politics but it is possible that absence of respect and legitimacy may weaken its efforts (Volgy et al, 2011). Upon this premise, it is not really unexpected that powers have continuously sought to enhance and protect their status (Forsberg et al, 2014;Paul et al, 2014;Wohlforth, 2014).…”

Section: Status Inconsistency Immobility and Revisionismmentioning

confidence: 99%

From status inconsistency to revisionism: Russian foreign policy after color revolutions

Mazloomi

Yeoh

Karim

2018

Japanese Journal of Political Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper delves into the shifts in the foreign policy of Russia, considering what has determined Russia's grand strategy orientation after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It also attempts to offer an explanation of why Russia becomes discounted with the ‘constitutive and normative structure’, and how its foreign policy shifted toward the anti-status quo orientation, especially after the color revolutions. The main purpose of this paper is to explain the shift in Russia's foreign policy, from the search for the ‘greatpowerness’ status via different enhancement strategies in light of status quo in the ‘revolutionary decade’, to revisionism after the color revolutions in Commonwealth of Independent States region (2003–2005). To substantiate this, the study uses process-tracing and document analysis to show the changes in Russia's foreign policy. As demonstrated in this paper, power rendered is unable of directing or disinclined to direct its policies toward status quo, due to internal effects of perceived ‘status immobility’ resulting from the failure of several status enhancement strategies. Accordingly, the shift in Russia's foreign policy was a result of changing the Russian perception from status inconsistency to status immobility.

show abstract

Major Power Status in International Politics

Cited by 41 publications

References 0 publications

Escalate to De-Escalate? External State Support and Governments’ Willingness to Negotiate

Escalate to De-Escalate? External State Support and Governments’ Willingness to Negotiate

Introduction

From status inconsistency to revisionism: Russian foreign policy after color revolutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About