IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v60y2016i5p866-898.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Variation of Formal Military Alliances

Author

Listed:
  • Brett V. Benson
  • Joshua D. Clinton

Abstract

Many critical questions involving the causes and consequences of formal military alliances are related to differences between various alliances in terms of the scope of the formal obligations, the depth of the commitment between signatories, and the potential military capacity of the alliance. Studying the causes and consequences of such variation is difficult because while we possess many indicators of various features of an alliance agreement that are thought to be related to the broader theoretical concepts of interest, it is unclear how to use the multitude of observable measures to characterize these broader underlying concepts. We show how a Bayesian measurement model can be used to provide parsimonious estimates of the scope, depth, and potential military capacity of formal military alliances signed between 1816 and 2000. We use the resulting estimates to explore some core intuitions that were previously difficult to verify regarding the formation of the formal alliance agreement, and we check the validity of the measures against known cases in alliances as well as by exploring common expectations regarding historical alliances.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:60:y:2016:i:5:p:866-898
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002714560348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002714560348
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002714560348?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. Brett Ashley Leeds & Sezi Anac, 2005. "Alliance Institutionalization and Alliance Performance," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 183-202, July.
    2. Jerry Hausman, 2001. "Mismeasured Variables in Econometric Analysis: Problems from the Right and Problems from the Left," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 57-67, Fall.
    3. 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.
    4. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    5. Abbott, Kenneth W. & Snidal, Duncan, 2000. "Hard and Soft Law in International Governance," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 421-456, July.
    6. Braumoeller, Bear F., 2004. "Hypothesis Testing and Multiplicative Interaction Terms," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(4), pages 807-820, October.
    7. Andreas Dür & Leonardo Baccini & Manfred Elsig, 2014. "The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 353-375, September.
    8. Erik Gartzke & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, 2004. "Why Democracies May Actually Be Less Reliable Allies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 775-795, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Pemstein, Daniel & Meserve, Stephen A. & Melton, James, 2010. "Democratic Compromise: A Latent Variable Analysis of Ten Measures of Regime Type," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 426-449.
    11. Shawn Treier & Simon Jackman, 2008. "Democracy as a Latent Variable," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 201-217, January.
    12. Dür, Andreas & Baccini, Leonardo & Elsig, Manfred, 2014. "The design of international trade agreements: introducing a new dataset," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 59179, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Leeds, Brett Ashley, 2003. "Alliance Reliability in Times of War: Explaining State Decisions to Violate Treaties," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(4), pages 801-827, October.
    14. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M. & Park, Jong Hee, 2011. "MCMCpack: Markov Chain Monte Carlo in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 42(i09).
    15. Høyland, Bjørn & Moene, Karl & Willumsen, Fredrik, 2012. "The tyranny of international index rankings," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 1-14.
    16. Rosenthal, Howard & Voeten, Erik, 2007. "Measuring legal systems," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 711-728, December.
    17. Nils B. Weidmann & Doreen Kuse & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, 2010. "The Geography of the International System: The CShapes Dataset," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 86-106, February.
    18. Quinn, Kevin M., 2004. "Bayesian Factor Analysis for Mixed Ordinal and Continuous Responses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 338-353.
    19. Schnakenberg, Keith E. & Fariss, Christopher J., 2014. "Dynamic Patterns of Human Rights Practices," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-31, April.
    20. Clinton, Joshua & Jackman, Simon & Rivers, Douglas, 2004. "The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 355-370, May.
    21. 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. 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.
    2. Christopher J Fariss & James Lo, 2020. "Innovations in concepts and measurement for the study of peace and conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 669-678, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Jule Krüger & Ragnhild Nordås, 2020. "A latent variable approach to measuring wartime sexual violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 728-739, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Jesse C. Johnson, 2016. "Alliance treaty obligations and war intervention," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(5), pages 451-468, November.
    8. Jesse C Johnson & Stephen Joiner, 2021. "Power changes, alliance credibility, and extended deterrence," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(2), pages 178-199, March.
    9. Alejandro Quiroz Flores, 2011. "Alliances as Contiguity in Spatial Models of Military Expenditures," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(4), pages 402-418, September.
    10. Julia Gray & Jonathan Slapin, 2012. "How effective are preferential trade agreements? Ask the experts," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 309-333, September.
    11. Pavel S. Pronin, 2020. "International Trade And Democracy: How Trade Partners Affect Regime Change And Persistence," HSE Working papers WP BRP 75/PS/2020, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    12. Lee, Jiwon & Wittgenstein, Teresa, 2017. "Weak vs. Strong Ties: Explaining Early Settlement in WTO Disputes," ILE Working Paper Series 7, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    13. Brett Ashley Leeds & Michaela Mattes & Jeremy S. Vogel, 2009. "Interests, Institutions, and the Reliability of International Commitments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 461-476, April.
    14. Vanessa A Boese, 2019. "How (not) to measure democracy," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(2), pages 95-127, June.
    15. Catherine C. Langlois, 2012. "Power and Deterrence in Alliance Relationships," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 148-169, April.
    16. Jeehye Kim & Jiyoung Ko, 2020. "To condone, condemn, or ‘no comment’? Explaining a patron’s reaction to a client’s unilateral provocations," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 452-465, May.
    17. Christopher Hare & Keith T. Poole, 2015. "Measuring ideology in Congress," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 18, pages 327-346, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Clayton L. Thyne, 2010. "Contentious Issues as Opportunities for Diversionary Behavior," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(5), pages 461-485, November.
    19. Bradley C. Smith & William Spaniel, 2020. "Introducing ν-CLEAR: a latent variable approach to measuring nuclear proficiency," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(2), pages 232-256, March.
    20. Scott J. LaCombe, 2021. "Measuring Institutional Design in U.S. States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1511-1533, July.

    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:jocore:v:60:y:2016:i:5:p:866-898. 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.