When Opponents Cooperate: Great Power Conflict and Collaboration in World Politics

Brawley, Mark R.; Miller, Benjamin

doi:10.2307/40203207

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether it is the lack of concern for some issues and actors (Ayoob, 1995), finite resources, sheer number of issues or more pressing issues, major powers' commitments to all matters pertaining to global peace and security are not endless. Major power competition or disengagement has been put forward as influencing the intensity of regional wars (Miller, 1995(Miller, , 2007(Miller, , 2016. Moreover, interest groups and wider public groups within major powers might work against peace prospects.…”

Section: Complex Peace Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of these might have implications for furthering peace. For example, if "in cases where a conflict has been effectively frozen or removed from the list of host wars, the case for engagement is politically and bureaucratically hard to make" for a given major power (Crocker et al, 2004, p. 37) then major power attention might be limited to avoiding and ending wars but not extend to reaching higher levels of peace (Miller, 1995).…”

Section: Complex Peace Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the focus is on relations between actors with considerable hostility in their relations. In this regard, this literature is connected to the protracted conflict and rivalry literatures (Azar, 1986;Kegley and Raymond, 1999;Diehl and Goertz, 2000;Miller, 1995;Kacowicz, 1998;Bayer, 2010;Wallensteen, 2015;Goertz et al, 2016;Diehl, 2016). Second, there are multiple levels of peace.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Major powers are often identified as the primary stakeholders of the international system that have potentially sufficient capacity and interest to prevent conflict among members of the interstate system (Bull, 1977;Waltz, 1979;Hampson, 2001). What is less studied is their role (Miller, 1995) in contributing to higher levels of peace. Given the long-standing acrimonious relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, their announcement at Beijing in March 2023 to restore diplomatic relations signaled an important qualitative change in their state of peace.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, the lack of improvement in Greek-Turkish state of peace, despite similar major power dynamics, suggests that caution is warranted in major power-related explanations. Overall, despite the increase in interest in studying quality of peace between antagonistic pairs of countries, there has been limited scholarly attention to when and how major powers contribute to peaceful change (Miller, 1995;Paul, 2017). Can major powers transform the complex relations between a pair of nonmajor powers that have had a particularly acrimonious relationship?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Complex Peace Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Complex Peace Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Major powers’ management of complex peace relationships

Bayer

2023

IJCMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Great Powers and Regional Conflicts: Eastern Europe and the Balkans from the Post-Napoleonic Era to the Post-Cold War Era

Miller

Kagan

1997

International Studies Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this article is to provide an analytical framework for addressing the sources of great power regional involvement and its effects on regional conflicts. The thesis of the article is that variations in the degree of intensity of conflicts and the likelihood of successful conflict resolution in different regions are affected by the character of great power involvement in these regions. Our argument is that although great power involvement or noninvolvement cannot cause or terminate regional conflicts, it can either intensify existing local conflicts or mitigate them. We will propose causal linkages between balances of great power capabilities and interests, types of great power involvement in regional conflicts, and patterns of regional conflicts. The study will distinguish among four types of great power involvement in regional conflicts: competition, cooperation, dominance, and disengagement. The empirical section will examine the application of these propositions in seven historical illustrations, representing the four patterns of great power involvement in regional conflicts. All the illustrations will deal with one conflict‐ridden region‐Eastern Europe and the Balkans, in successive historical periods from the post‐Napoleonic era to the post‐Cold War era. Because of the variety of patterns of great power involvement in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, this region is uniquely suited to examine the propositions derived from the theoretical framework. Drawing on both the theoretical deductions and the historical illustrations should make it possible in the last section to discuss briefly the implications of the proposed framework for regional conflict management or mitigation in the Balkans in the post‐Cold War era.

show abstract

Rivalry, Reaction, and Weapons Proliferation: A Time-Series Analysis of Global Arms Transfers

Kinsella

2002

Int Studies Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes the competitive dynamics in global arms transfers from 1951 to 1995. I discuss the enduring forces behind the proliferation of military capability during the Cold War and other historical periods, and then consider the competitive dynamics characteristic of the superpower rivalry itself. The process of military‐technological advance, along with the dynamics of enduring interstate rivalry, lead us to expect certain patterns in quantitative data representing arms‐transfer levels over time. Concepts in time‐series analysis—cointegration and error correction—are helpful for understanding competitive arms‐transfer policies during the Cold War, and I apply the relevant analytical tools to test for the hypothesized patterns in the empirical data. American and Russian, as well as NATO and Warsaw Pact, arms transfers are examined at three levels of regional aggregation: the Third World as a whole, the Middle East security complex, and the Persian Gulf subcomplex. The evidence shows that arms transfers by the Cold War rivals moved together in patterns consistent with competitive policy making in an environment of military‐technological change, and that one or both sides adjusted their supply policies to correct for deviations from a moving equilibrium. This describes an action‐reaction process, but a loosely coupled one deriving from military‐technological uncertainties, the complexities of regional security dynamics, and the multidimensional character of the Cold War competition.

show abstract

When Opponents Cooperate: Great Power Conflict and Collaboration in World Politics

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Major powers’ management of complex peace relationships

Major powers’ management of complex peace relationships

The Great Powers and Regional Conflicts: Eastern Europe and the Balkans from the Post-Napoleonic Era to the Post-Cold War Era

Rivalry, Reaction, and Weapons Proliferation: A Time-Series Analysis of Global Arms Transfers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About