IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v34y2017i5p546-571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1

Author

Listed:
  • Choong-Nam Kang

Abstract

The main questions explored here are whether alliances lead to conflict between member states and non-member states and whether the capability of allies is a source of this effect. Building on the opportunity framework, this study argues that, with more confidence in military success due to support from allies, challenger states are more likely to be emboldened and to initiate disputes. The empirical analyses show that the capability of allies has an increasing effect on dispute initiation of member states against non-member states. This increasing effect becomes stronger as the level of common interests between the allies increases. The test results consistently suggest that alliances embolden member states to initiate disputes against non-member states, and also that alliances are more likely to aggravate, but not mute, dispute initiation against member states.

Suggested Citation

  • Choong-Nam Kang, 2017. "Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 546-571, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:34:y:2017:i:5:p:546-571
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894215604966
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894215604966
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894215604966?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul D. Senese, 2005. "Territory, Contiguity, and International Conflict: Assessing a New Joint Explanation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 769-779, October.
    2. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    3. Braumoeller, Bear F., 2004. "Hypothesis Testing and Multiplicative Interaction Terms," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(4), pages 807-820, October.
    4. Brett Ashley Leeds, 2003. "Do Alliances Deter Aggression? The Influence of Military Alliances on the Initiation of Militarized Interstate Disputes," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 427-439, July.
    5. Carter, David B. & Signorino, Curtis S., 2010. "Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 271-292, July.
    6. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    7. Douglas Gibler & Toby Rider, 2004. "Prior Commitments: Compatible Interests versus Capabilities in Alliance Behavior," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 309-329, October.
    8. Volker Krause, 2004. "Hazardous Weapons? Effects of Arms Transfers and Defense Pacts on Militarized Disputes, 1950-1995," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 349-371, October.
    9. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    10. James D. Fearon, 1997. "Signaling Foreign Policy Interests," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 68-90, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Altman & Federico Rojas-de-Galarreta & Francisco Urdinez, 2021. "An interactive model of democratic peace," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 384-398, May.
    2. Brett V. Benson & Joshua D. Clinton, 2016. "Assessing the Variation of Formal Military Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 60(5), pages 866-898, August.
    3. Andrew P. Owsiak, 2019. "Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(1), pages 63-87, January.
    4. Thorin M. Wright & Toby J. Rider, 2014. "Disputed territory, defensive alliances and conflict initiation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(2), pages 119-144, April.
    5. Sambuddha Ghatak & Aaron Gold & Brandon C Prins, 2017. "External threat and the limits of democratic pacifism," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 141-159, March.
    6. William D. Berry & Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt & Justin Esarey, 2010. "Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 248-266, January.
    7. Cullen S. Hendrix, 2014. "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behavior," Working Paper Series WP14-3, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    8. Pierre-Guillaume Méon & Khalid Sekkat, 2016. "A time to throw stones, a time to reap: How long does it take for democratic transitions to improve institutional outcomes?," Working Papers CEB 16-016, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Jesse C. Johnson & Brett Ashley Leeds & Ahra Wu, 2015. "Capability, Credibility, and Extended General Deterrence," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 309-336, March.
    10. Jo Jakobsen & Thomas Halvorsen, 2019. "Geographical and temporal patterns of interstate security competition: Global and regional evidence," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 226-246, September.
    11. Alexandra Guisinger & Alastair Smith, 2002. "Honest Threats," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(2), pages 175-200, April.
    12. Shawna K. Metzger, 2017. "Time is on my side? The impact of timing and dispute type on militarized conflict duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 308-329, May.
    13. Raymond Kuo & Brian Dylan Blankenship, 2022. "Deterrence and Restraint: Do Joint Military Exercises Escalate Conflict?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(1), pages 3-31, January.
    14. Johann Park, 2013. "Forward to the future? The democratic peace after the Cold War," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(2), pages 178-194, April.
    15. Morgan, T. Clifton & Kobayashi, Yoshiharu, 2021. "Talking to the hand: Bargaining, strategic interaction, and economic sanctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    16. Robert Ulrich Nagel, 2021. "Gendered preferences: How women’s inclusion in society shapes negotiation occurrence in intrastate conflicts," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 433-448, May.
    17. Soumyajit Mazumder, 2016. "Can I stay a BIT longer? The effect of bilateral investment treaties on political survival," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 477-521, December.
    18. Sam R. Bell, 2017. "Power, territory, and interstate conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 160-175, March.
    19. Benjamin E. Bagozzi, 2016. "The baseline-inflated multinomial logit model for international relations research," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(2), pages 174-197, April.
    20. Graeme A.M. Davies & Robert Johns, 2016. "The domestic consequences of international over-cooperation: An experimental study of microfoundations," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(4), pages 343-360, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:34:y:2017:i:5:p:546-571. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.