Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:00:25.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peace, War, and the Balance of Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

R. Harrison Wagner
R. Harrison Wagner
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Every possible relation between the distribution of power and the likelihood of war has been defended somewhere in the literature on international politics: war is least likely if power is distributed equally, war is least likely if power is distributed unequally, and the distribution of power has no effect on the likelihood of war. I try to settle this dispute by examining the effect of expectations about the outcome of war on the choice between war and negotiation. I argue that each of these mutually contradictory propositions can be derived from some plausible set of premises and thus that which one is correct depends on which set of premises best describes a situation. The most important factors affecting the relation between the distribution of power and the likelihood of war are (1) whether the terms of a compromise agreement that might be accepted in lieu of war affect the distribution of power between the antagonists and therefore the probability that the agreement will be enforced and (2) how many states' interests will be affected by the outcome.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 88 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 593 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, Stuart, and Luck, Edward C., eds. 1980. On the Endings of Wars. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat.Google Scholar
Blainey, Geoffrey. 1988. The Causes of War. 3d ed.New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Lalman, David. 1992. War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claude, Inis L. 1962. Power and International Relations. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Clausewitz, Carl von. 1976. On War. Ed. and trans. Howard, Michael and Paret, Peter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1992. “War, Relative Power, and Private Information.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Gaddis, John L. 1991. “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System.” In The Cold War and After, ed. Lynn-Jones, Sean M.. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Kecskemeti, Paul. 1958. Strategic Surrender: The Politics of Victory and Defeat. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Koerner, Craig, and Goemans, Hein E.. 1990. “Bipolar Stability: The Carthaginian Perspective.” University of Chicago. Typescript.Google Scholar
Kreps, David M. 1990. Game Theory and Economic Modelling. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1990/1991. “Preferences, Constraints, and Choices in July 1914.” International Security 15:151–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 1983. Conventional Deterrence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 1991. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War.” In The Cold War and After, ed. Lynn-Jones, Sean M.. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1967. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Niou, Emerson M. S., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1990. “Stability in Anarchic International Systems.” American Political Science Review 84:1207–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niou, Emerson M. S., Ordeshook, Peter C., Rose, Gregory F.. 1989. The Balance of Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organski, A. K. F. 1958. World Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Pillar, Paul R. 1983. Negotiating Peace: War Termination as a Bargaining Process. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1992. “Bargaining in the Shadow of Force.” University of California, Berkeley. Typescript.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sharp, Gene. 1990. Civilian-based Defense: A Post-Military Weapons System. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Snidai, Duncan. 1991. “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation.” American Political Science Review 85:701–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Janice G. 1992. “Deterrence and Compellence in the Gulf, 1990–91: A Failed or Impossible Task?” International Security 17:147–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timasheff, Nicholas S. 1965. War and Revolution. New York: Sheed & Ward.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1986. “The Theory of Games and the Balance of Power.” World Politics 38:546–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1992. “Rationality and Misperception in Deterrence Theory.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 4:115–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1993a. “The Causes of Peace.” In Stopping the Killing, ed. Licklider, Roy. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1993b. “What Was Bipolarity?” International Organization 47:77–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1994. “Peace and the Balance of Power in a Three-State World.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Addison–Wesley.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1979. “How a War Ends: A Rational Model Approach.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 23:743–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.