IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v48y2004i2p211-229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Different Types of Military Mobilization on the Outcome of International Crises

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Lai

    (Department of Political Science, University of Iowa)

Abstract

One dominant explanation for why crises escalate to war is based on misperception. Alternative rational explanations for why crises escalate to war are examined, including commitment problems, the cost of revealing military advantages, and a desire for greater future gains. These explanations for war argue that states are likely to prefer a military to a diplomatic solution and to mobilizetheir militaries to maximize a surprise attack advantage. This type of mobilization (private) is different from mobilization by states seeking a diplomatic advantage (public) because states are trying to avoid revealing information. When one state in a crisis mobilizes privately, war is more likely because one state is committed to conflict whereas the other is not receiving signals of an impending conflict. The effect of private mobilization on war is tested using the International Crisis Behavior data. The results demonstrate that private mobilization is likely to lead to war.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Lai, 2004. "The Effects of Different Types of Military Mobilization on the Outcome of International Crises," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(2), pages 211-229, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:48:y:2004:i:2:p:211-229
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002703262862
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002703262862
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002703262862?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. James D. Fearon, 1994. "Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(2), pages 236-269, June.
    2. Van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M. & Van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1981. "The demand for deductibles in private health insurance : A probit model with sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 229-252, November.
    3. Fearon, James D., 1995. "Rationalist explanations for war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, July.
    4. Doyle, Michael W., 1986. "Liberalism and World Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1151-1169, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Schultz, Kenneth A., 1999. "Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 233-266, April.
    7. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    8. Rousseau, David L. & Gelpi, Christopher & Reiter, Dan & Huth, Paul K., 1996. "Assessing the Dyadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918–88," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 512-533, September.
    9. Michelle R. Garfinkel & Stergios Skaperdas, 2000. "Conflict without Misperceptions or Incomplete Information," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(6), pages 793-807, December.
    10. Garfinkel, M.R. & Skaperdas, S., 2000. "Conflict without Misperceptions or Incomplete Information: how the Future Matters," Papers 99-00-11, California Irvine - School of Social Sciences.
    11. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Marco Serena, 2019. "A Game-Free Microfoundation of Mutual Optimism," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Alexandra Guisinger & Alastair Smith, 2002. "Honest Threats," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(2), pages 175-200, April.
    3. David H. Clark & Patrick M. Regan, 2003. "Opportunities to Fight," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 94-115, February.
    4. Helmut Bester & Kai A. Konrad, 2005. "Easy Targets and the Timing of Conflict," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 17(2), pages 199-215, April.
    5. Elizabeth A. Stanley & John P. Sawyer, 2009. "The Equifinality of War Termination," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(5), pages 651-676, October.
    6. repec:got:cegedp:21 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. Coyne,Christopher J., 2020. "Defense, Peace, and War Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108724036.
    9. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita & Michael T. Koch & Randolph M. Siverson, 2004. "Testing Competing Institutional Explanations of the Democratic Peace: The Case of Dispute Duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(4), pages 255-267, September.
    10. Matthew O. Jackson & Massimo Morelli, 2011. "The Reasons for Wars: An Updated Survey," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Maxime Menuet & Petros G. Sekeris, 2021. "Overconfidence and conflict," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1483-1499, October.
    12. Chang, Yang-Ming & Sanders, Shane & Walia, Bhavneet, 2015. "The costs of conflict: A choice-theoretic, equilibrium analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 62-65.
    13. Garfinkel, Michelle R. & Syropoulos, Constantinos, 2021. "Self-enforcing peace agreements that preserve the status quo," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 148-178.
    14. Blouin, Max & Pallage, Stéphane, 2016. "Warlords, famine and food aid: Who fights, who starves?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-38.
    15. Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers, 2011. "Introduction," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Michelle R. Garfinkel & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2019. "Problems of commitment in arming and war: how insecurity and destruction matter," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 349-369, March.
    17. William Reed, 2003. "Information and Economic Interdependence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 54-71, February.
    18. Nicholas Sambanis, 2002. "A Review of Recent Advances and Future Directions in the Quantitative Literature on Civil War," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 215-243.
    19. Konrad, Kai A. & Kovenock, Dan, 2009. "Multi-battle contests," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 256-274, May.
    20. Charles H. Anderton & John R. Carter, 2011. "A Bargaining Theory Perspective on War," Chapters, in: Derek L. Braddon & Keith Hartley (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Conflict, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Gries, Thomas & Haake, Claus-Jochen, 2016. "An Economic Theory of 'Destabilization War' '- Compromise for Peace versus Conventional, Guerilla, or Terrorist Warfare," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145617, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    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:48:y:2004:i:2:p:211-229. 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.