Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:37:43.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Spatial Model of International Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1986

James D. Morrow
James D. Morrow*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The model presented here assumes that nations initiate conflict to change the international status quo across one or more issues to an outcome they prefer. Their preferences for different issue outcomes are represented by a classical spatial utility function. International coalitions are formed both to enhance the chance of a successful challenge and to counter existing challenges. Disputes are modeled as periods of competition between two coalitions through the recruitment of additional members, erosion of support for the opposing coalition and escalation of the crisis. The two-nation model is analyzed in detail, and the existence of the core for the resulting game is proved. The two main conclusions of the two-nation model are that nations have a general incentive to exaggerate their issue positions in disputes and that the possibility of issue trades enhances the likelihood of compromise.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 80 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 1131 - 1150
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1986

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

Allison, Graham T. 1972. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Apostol, Thomas. M. 1974. Mathematical Analysis, 2d ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Value, 2d ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1985. The War Trap Revisited. American Political Science Review, 79:156–73.10.2307/1956125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Otto A., Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1970. An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process. American Political Science Review, 64: 426–48.10.2307/1953842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Savage, Leonard J.. 1948. The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56:279–304.10.1086/256692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Herman. 1965. On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kreps, David M., and Wilson, Robert. 1982. Sequential Equilibria. Econometrica, 50:863–94.10.2307/1912767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1985. Theories of General War. World Politics, 37:344–74.10.2307/2010247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, and Raiffa, Howard. 1957. Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1983. Covering, Dominance, and Institution-Free Properties of Social Choice. Caltech Social Science Working Paper No. 494. Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., Ordeshook, Peter C., and Winer, Mark D.. 1978. The Competitive Solution for N-Person Games Without Transferable Utility, with an Application to Committee Games. American Political Science Review, 72:599–615.10.2307/1954112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbach, Richard W., and Vasquez, John A.. 1981. In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm for Global Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. Clifton. 1984. A Spatial Model of Crisis Bargaining. International Studies Quarterly, 28:407–26.10.2307/2600563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1985a. A Continuous-Outcome Expected Utility Theory of War. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29:473–502.10.1177/0022002785029003005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1985b. Tripolarity Revisited: Solutions to a Three-Nation Model of International Conflict. Presented at the 1985 annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Newman, David. 1983. Changes in Internal Capabilities and the Decision to Align. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Petersen, Walter J. 1983. Threats, Wars, and Expected Utility. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1973. An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Savage, Leonard J. 1972. The Foundations of Statistics, 2d ed. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Selten, Reinhart. 1975. Re-examination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games. International Journal of Game Theory, 4:25–55.10.1007/BF01766400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models. American Journal of Political Science, 23:27–59.10.2307/2110770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1985. Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science. American Political Science Review, 79: 293–304.10.2307/1956650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Glenn H., and Diesing, Paul. 1977. Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1983. The Theory of Games and the Problem of International Cooperation. American Political Science Review, 77:330–46.10.2307/1958919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1984. War and Expected Utility Theory. World Politics, 36:407–23.10.2307/2010381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1979. How a War Ends. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23:743–63.10.1177/002200277902300408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.