IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v56y2002i01p121-149_44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Might of the Pen: A Reputational Theory of Communication in International Disputes

Author

Listed:
  • Sartori, Anne E.

Abstract

I present a theory of effective diplomacy based on honesty and reputations. I model diplomacy as a form of “cheap talk” and international interactions as an infinitely repeated game in which similar states find themselves in disparate situations over time. The theory explains the success and failure of diplomacy. Reputations for honesty make honest communication possible. A state caught bluffing is less able to communicate and less likely to attain its goals in the near future. These findings imply that domestic audience costs are unnecessary for international signaling and that military strength is not the only way to build credibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Sartori, Anne E., 2002. "The Might of the Pen: A Reputational Theory of Communication in International Disputes," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(1), pages 121-149, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:56:y:2002:i:01:p:121-149_44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818302441653/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.
    2. Kong, NGUYEN To Hong, 2021. "State-to-state Trust in Post-leadership Change: Case Study of China-Japan Relations, 2009-2019," OSF Preprints hdbcy, Center for Open Science.
    3. Hans-Inge Langø, 2023. "Intervention, war expansion, and the international sources of civil war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(3), pages 304-324, May.
    4. Kevin Sweeney & Omar M.G. Keshk, 2005. "the Similarity of States: Using S to Compute Dyadic Interest Similarity," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 165-187, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Brenton Kenkel, 2019. "The efficacy of cheap talk in collective action problems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(3), pages 370-402, July.
    7. Peter Bils & William Spaniel, 2017. "Policy bargaining and militarized conflict," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(4), pages 647-678, October.
    8. Yaohui Wang, 2023. "A blessing or a curse? China’s Arctic involvement and its environmental policy to prevent further climatic change and pollution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Adam Meirowitz & Massimo Morelli & Kristopher W. Ramsay & Francesco Squintani, 2019. "Dispute Resolution Institutions and Strategic Militarization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 378-418.
    10. Renato Corbetta, 2015. "Between indifference and coercion: Third-party intervention techniques in ongoing disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(1), pages 3-27, February.
    11. Arthur Dyevre, 2017. "Domestic judicial defiance and the authority of international legal regimes," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 453-481, December.
    12. Kristopher W. Ramsay, 2004. "Politics at the Water’s Edge," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 459-486, August.
    13. Joe Clare & Vesna Danilovic, 2012. "Reputation for Resolve, Interests, and Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 3-27, February.
    14. Frank C Zagare & D Marc Kilgour, 2023. "Modeling threats and promises: Explaining the Munich crisis of 1938," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(4), pages 661-674, July.
    15. Douglas M. Gibler, 2008. "The Costs of Reneging," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(3), pages 426-454, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:intorg:v:56:y:2002:i:01:p:121-149_44. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    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.