The International Conflict Behavior of Dictatorships from an Audience Cost Perspective

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica Frantz
1998 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILL H. MOORE ◽  
DAVID R. DAVIS

In this article, the authors develop and empirically evaluate a general model of the linkages between domestic and international conflict behavior. Much of the literature on domestic international interactions has focused on the structural constraints of the international and domestic systems on leaders' foreign policy decisions. Rather than focusing on structural constraints, the present authors model the influence of the behavior of domestic and international rivals on leader decision making. The impact of rivals' behavior on conflict across the domestic-international nexus has been neglected relative to the role of structural factors. This study helps redress that imbalance. The authors test their model with a statistical analysis of Zaire during the period 1975 to 1992 and find substantial support for the model.


2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton ◽  
Alexander H. Montgomery

There is growing evidence that preferential trade agreements (PTAs) provide strong institutional incentives to prevent international conflict among member states, often creating the conditions of trust that can help prevent militarized aggression. We provide an approach to the study of how international institutions influence conflict behavior that considers how PTAs exclude as well as include members and create asymmetrical relationships among members that could exacerbate conflict. PTAs do more than create expectations of economic gains and reduce opportunism; they also create hierarchical relations between states, which can encourage conflict under different conditions due to distrust. We theorize these conditions for militarized international disputes, develop appropriate measures using social network analysis, and test our expectations on new PTA data during the period 1950 to 2000.


2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 596-609
Author(s):  
Matthew DiLorenzo

Recent research identifies the risk and consequences of losing office as important factors in leaders’ decisions to initiate international conflicts. This paper argues that the institutional source of a domestic threat to a leader should condition the relationship between political insecurity and international conflict. Specifically, existing theoretical mechanisms linking international conflict to security in office should not apply to threats that come from outside a leader’s selectorate. Natural disasters provide a convenient opportunity to test this argument since others have argued that disasters not only affect the risk that all types of leaders lose office but that they do so by creating threats that operate through different mechanisms in different domestic institutional contexts. I find that deaths from disasters are positively associated with conflict initiation among large-coalition leaders throughout the period of 1950 to 2007. I also find that neither disaster deaths nor events are related to conflict behavior for small-coalition leaders. In arguing that not all threats to leader survival matter for international conflict, the paper offers an important qualification to theories of leader survival and international conflict.


1966 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. Rummel

Foreign conflict behavior data covering long periods of time are urgently needed for the scientific investigation of international conflict. Except in the case of the most violent behavior, war, such data in aggregate form generally are not available to researchers.


Res Publica ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-343
Author(s):  
Gustaaf Geeraerst

Although the knowledge of war and international conflict has definitely increased, we do not as yet have much insight into why and how wars come about, and especially how war as a certain and comparably rare form of conflict regulation is connected to conflict behavior at lower levels of intensity as military disputes and international conflict behavior in general. Theoretical progress in the study of war demands a significant effort at the level of basic research. It is imperative to spend more energy at the rigorous deduction of testable propositions from general explanatory principles or mechanisms. For the success of such an endeavour it is essential to adopt both a dynamic and systems-theoretic perspective. This implies a vision of war as a certain and one of possible phases in the international political process, concurrently with other injuriousforms of interaction as serious disputes and low level conflict behavior, but also supportive behavior like trade and cooperation. Yet, if we are to analyze and understand the war phenomenon from this perspective, clearly more formalized approaches and techniques are imperative.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document