Search

Approximately one third of all interstate conflicts are multilateral, with the majority of these having a coalition of states fighting on at least one side. Despite the frequency of coalition wars, coalitions have not received a great deal of attention within the conflict literature. This paper presents the first general study on the effectiveness of coalitions during interstate wars. While there are many drawbacks to fighting as part of coalition, the benefits of cooperation outweigh the cost, making coalitions more likely to win wars. Empirical examination of war outcomes between 1816 and 1997 confirms this hypothesis; coalitions are over twice as likely to win the wars they fight when compared to states fighting outside of a coalition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One quarter of all interstate conflicts are multilateral, with the majority of these having a coalition of states fighting on at least one side. However, current theories of war outcome are dominated by dyadic explanations which ignore the contribution of coalitions. While popular opinion views coalitions as ineffective in waging war, these criticisms overlook many advantages to fighting as part of a coalition. While coalitions often do have problems, the strengths of fighting together outweigh the cost, making coalitions more likely to win wars. Empirical examination of war outcomes between 1816 and 1997 confirms this hypothesis; coalitions are almost three times more likely to win the wars they fight when compared to states fighting outside of a coalition. Further, as command and control becomes more centralized, allowing greater coordination between coalition members, the odds of victory greatly increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the constitutional role of the president in the process of selecting Supreme Court justices is limited to the initial selection of nominees, he does not simply select a nominee and then throw the candidate to the wolves of the Senate to be nurtured or devoured at their whim. Existing research looks at the impact of the ideological distance between a president (or his nominee) and the Senate on the president's strategic selection of whom to nominate, as well as on his decision to "go public" to defend his nominees. However this research fails to capture the nuances of the process. We argue that both the president and the Senate consider a legal and an ideological dimension when evaluating Supreme Court nominees, and that strategic presidents utilize rhetoric to shift Senate consideration of their nominee away from the more controversial dimension and toward the less controversial dimension. To analyze presidential rhetoric during the confirmation process we utilize an original dataset coding seven types of presidential statements about Supreme Court nominees between 1965 and 2005. We find strong evidence that presidents behave in strategic fashion determining both when and how they should "go public" in defense of their nominee based upon the political climate in the Senate. Additionally, we find that presidential rhetoric can impact the outcome of the final Senate confirmation vote, but that this impact is conditional upon both the political climate in the Senate and the types of statements that the president makes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to explain why states withdraw their troops from the coalition effort to stabilize Iraq. Among other variables we explore the effect of casualties, the enemy's willingness to suffer, and regime type on the decision to withdraw. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is the role of conflict in determining the characteristics of the peace? This question has evolved into a puzzle for scholars studying civil conflict. Theoretical arguments and empirical evidence exist to support the conclusion that more violent conflicts lead to longer or to shorter peace durations. Applying a formal model of rivalry, this paper derives a new hypothesis regarding how conflict effects the duration of peace; specifically focusing on the level of shock produced from the fighting. The greater the shock from fighting between internal rivals, the longer the peace between them will last. This hypothesis receives support from test on the duration of peace between Enduring Internal Rivalries. The implications from this finding provide new advice for policy makers seeking to invest scare resources into civil conflict management efforts. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines major power interactions in the late nineteenth century. It cites that traditional power transition (PT) theory predicts that a sudden increase in numbers of war are linked with scenarios in which a challenging state's power overtakes that of a dominant state. Also summarized are the features of a model that builds on the logic of PT theory and on that of its central rival, balance of power (BOP) theory, created to capture the relationship between power and conflict in interstate rivalries.

The article discusses several ways to further broaden the scope of generalizing power transition (PT) theory. It considers an expanded universe of cases, namely power dyads. It then tests for a non-monotonic relationship between a dyad's power relationship and its conflict level. It summarizes theoretical expectations for a curvilinear relationship between a dyadic power distribution and two states' conflictual interactions. It introduces an event data set designed to provide information as well as lower levels of interstate conflict.

While international rivalries have received a great deal of attention recently, there have been few general theories of rivalries developed. Starting from the assumption that rivalry creation and termination are political decisions, instead of military decisions, this paper builds a model of international rivalry that links domestic politics and conflict between rivals. The relationship between the domestic political environment and conflict is multidirectional, with conflict altering domestic political calculations and domestic politics altering the conflictual tendencies of each state. This new understanding of rivalries provides novel hypotheses regarding rivalry creation and termination, along with predictions regarding the varying level of hostility between states over the course of the rivalry. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]