Triangles, Major Powers, and Rivalry Duration

Lee, Bomi K.

doi:10.1177/00220027221134781

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(117 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, based on a logic of limited resources, a state faced with multiple disputes, whether domestic or international, is likely to prioritize certain disputes over others [or engage in "strategic triage" (Genest and Holmes, 2016;Cordesman, 2022)] and accommodate one adversary by resolving one such dispute peacefully to concentrate its valuable military resources toward one or more other existing disputes (Lee, 2008, pp. 289-290;Lee, 2022). Moreover, it emphasizes peaceful Connecting international and domestic dots resolution of disputes as it is far less costly than military escalation and thus allows states to preserve their valuable resources.…”

Section: Ijcma 351mentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting international and domestic dots: how conflict entanglement informs resolution and escalation

Melin

Grigorescu

2023

IJCMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to seek to and understand how civil conflict and international claims inform one another. Does the existence of ongoing civil and international conflicts affect how a government addresses an international claim? The paper builds on existing literature that link international and domestic conflict. However, it suggests that the logic behind civil conflicts may be different from that for international ones as states decide how to deal with any one claim. Design/methodology/approach The paper posits that states faced with domestic conflicts and additional international claims are more likely to seek to resolve an international claim than those without similar conflicts. It develops a series of hypotheses about the likelihood of claim escalation and peaceful settlement attempts and proceed to test them quantitatively using the Issue Correlates of War data combined with the uppsala conflict data program/peace research institute oslo Armed Conflict Data. Findings On the one hand, the paper finds support for the argument regarding the difficulty states are faced with when seeking to resolve multiple international claims. On the other hand, it finds that the presence of civil conflicts incentivizes states to resolve international claims either by force or peacefully, suggesting internal violence can both lead to diversionary behavior and attempts at conflict resolution. Research limitations/implications The findings have important implications for work considering the complexity of domestic and international conflict linkages. Originality/value While many studies of claim militarization and peaceful attempts focus on dyadic and international characteristics, this paper creates a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of this foreign policy decision process.

show abstract

Section: Ijcma 351mentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting international and domestic dots: how conflict entanglement informs resolution and escalation

Melin

Grigorescu

2023

IJCMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past work argues that powerful states can engage extensively in conflict management (Hampson, 2001; Greig, 2005) but that even they might not be able to move weaker states toward conflict resolution particularly if concerns of relative gains and survival are very high (Miller, 1995; Lee, 2022). Nonetheless, nonmajor powers likely share interest similarity as countries that fight also have reasons to cooperate, such as over water management issues.…”

Section: Major Powers and Levels Of Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

Major powers’ management of complex peace relationships

Bayer

2023

IJCMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to contribute to discussions on peace between hostile nonmajor powers by focusing on the behavior of major powers. Specifically, alliances between nonmajor and major powers are explored to determine whether such ties contribute to transitions to higher levels of peace. Moreover, systemic factors involving power dynamics and relationships between major powers are also evaluated. Design/methodology/approach Multiple data sets which altogether covered the era from 1816 to 2010 were analyzed. All pairs of countries that were former foes were considered. Cox hazard regression was conducted. Findings Systemic instability is influential at transitions from lowest levels of peace for nonmajor power dyads. Eras where major powers are operating multilaterally appear to play a highly limited role in nonmajor powers attaining stable peace. However, alliances with major powers are relatively more crucial in these discussions for nonmajor powers and contribute to higher levels of peace being attained by nonmajor powers. Research limitations/implications Further research in particular with case studies can help to elucidate and extend the statistical findings. Practical implications Based on the findings, the design and operations of alliances can create more space to hear a wider range of issues that allies can be facing. Originality/value While major powers clearly have considerable capacity and global outreach, there has been little attention to whether and how they contribute to former foes attaining higher quality of peace.

show abstract

Sharing rivals, sending weapons: Rivalry and cooperation in the international arms trade, 1920–1939

Mehrl,

Seussler,

Thurner

2023

Rev Int Organ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

States must navigate the structure of the international system in their relations with other states. One crucial component of this structure are rivalries as they indicate latent threat to states. Rivalries should thus influence how states behave within the given system, but also how they seek to shape and restructure it. Focusing on arms transfers, we clarify how the systemic structure implied by rivalries drives states’ efforts to engage in security cooperation with other states. Intuitively, a rivalry with another country should diminish an exporter’s propensity to transfer weapons there. But what is more, we argue that rivalries outside of this focal dyad matter as a potential importer’s enmity towards other countries will reveal information about its security interests to the exporter. Specifically, sharing rivalries with the same set of countries will signal to the exporter that there is a congruence in security interests and thus facilitate security cooperation. This security cooperation should take the form of arms transfers, at least if exporters value buck-passing and fear entrapment. We test our expectations using original data on Major Conventional Weapons transfers in the Interwar years, a period where this condition likely holds, and inferential network analysis models. Sharing rivals increases two countries’ probability to trade arms whereas a rivalry between countries exhibits no effect. This research contributes to our understanding of security cooperation, the arms trade, and networked international relations.

show abstract

Triangles, Major Powers, and Rivalry Duration

Cited by 7 publications

References 56 publications

Connecting international and domestic dots: how conflict entanglement informs resolution and escalation

Connecting international and domestic dots: how conflict entanglement informs resolution and escalation

Major powers’ management of complex peace relationships

Sharing rivals, sending weapons: Rivalry and cooperation in the international arms trade, 1920–1939

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About