RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기

    "Silent partners" and other essays on alliance politics.

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T10597238

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Over the last twenty years, scholars of all persuasions have become increasingly convinced of the need to incorporate the role of perceptions and beliefs into our theories of alliance formation. We have come to understand military alliances as signaling devices that states employ to enhance the credibility of their promises and threats and thereby deter potential enemies from initiating disputes. The three theoretical papers that compose this dissertation extend the logic of the signaling model to address overlooked issues of alliance design.
    The European alliance system prior to the First World War has been characterized as "rigid" and "inflexible" because the great powers formed alliances in anticipation of possible future disputes rather than in reaction to disputes as they emerged. In "Standing and Reactive Alliances," I argue that the timing of alliance formation has important implications for crisis bargaining behavior that rational states will take into account when forming alliances. I contrast two simple game-theoretic models showing that states should favor "standing" alliances when deterrence is their highest priority, but that "reactive" alliances allow states to avoid the costs of forming alliances that may prove to be unnecessary.
    If we understand alliances as signaling devices, the prevalence of secret defensive alliances in nineteenth-century Europe seems rather puzzling. In "Silent Partners," I develop a model in which states form secret defensive alliances in order to prevent their enemies from determining their optimal means of attack. Somewhat surprisingly, I identify conditions under which the potential for secret alliance formation deters attackers who could not be deterred if all alliances were publicly observable.
    Finally, in "Entrapment in Alliance Politics," I argue draw on insights from game theory to show that the risk of entrapment---being dragged into war involuntarily by one's ally---is not inherent in alliance formation and that it is not directly related to the risk of abandonment. States can be entrapped only when they rely upon commitment mechanisms rather than costly signals to establish the credibility of their alliance promises. States design their alliance treaties to avoid the risk of entrapment when they mistrust their partners' incentives.
    번역하기

    Over the last twenty years, scholars of all persuasions have become increasingly convinced of the need to incorporate the role of perceptions and beliefs into our theories of alliance formation. We have come to understand military alliances as signal...

    Over the last twenty years, scholars of all persuasions have become increasingly convinced of the need to incorporate the role of perceptions and beliefs into our theories of alliance formation. We have come to understand military alliances as signaling devices that states employ to enhance the credibility of their promises and threats and thereby deter potential enemies from initiating disputes. The three theoretical papers that compose this dissertation extend the logic of the signaling model to address overlooked issues of alliance design.
    The European alliance system prior to the First World War has been characterized as "rigid" and "inflexible" because the great powers formed alliances in anticipation of possible future disputes rather than in reaction to disputes as they emerged. In "Standing and Reactive Alliances," I argue that the timing of alliance formation has important implications for crisis bargaining behavior that rational states will take into account when forming alliances. I contrast two simple game-theoretic models showing that states should favor "standing" alliances when deterrence is their highest priority, but that "reactive" alliances allow states to avoid the costs of forming alliances that may prove to be unnecessary.
    If we understand alliances as signaling devices, the prevalence of secret defensive alliances in nineteenth-century Europe seems rather puzzling. In "Silent Partners," I develop a model in which states form secret defensive alliances in order to prevent their enemies from determining their optimal means of attack. Somewhat surprisingly, I identify conditions under which the potential for secret alliance formation deters attackers who could not be deterred if all alliances were publicly observable.
    Finally, in "Entrapment in Alliance Politics," I argue draw on insights from game theory to show that the risk of entrapment---being dragged into war involuntarily by one's ally---is not inherent in alliance formation and that it is not directly related to the risk of abandonment. States can be entrapped only when they rely upon commitment mechanisms rather than costly signals to establish the credibility of their alliance promises. States design their alliance treaties to avoid the risk of entrapment when they mistrust their partners' incentives.

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼