IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ginixx/v41y2015i2p309-336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capability, Credibility, and Extended General Deterrence

Author

Listed:
  • Jesse C. Johnson
  • Brett Ashley Leeds
  • Ahra Wu

Abstract

Deterrence theory suggests that extended general deterrent threats are likely to be more effective when a potential challenger views them as capable and credible. When states sign formal defense pacts, they are making explicit extended general deterrent threats. Thus, the population of defense pacts allows us an opportunity to judge the efficacy of extended deterrent threats with different characteristics. We find that defense pacts with more capability and more credibility reduce the probability that a member state will be a target of a militarized dispute. We also find that states can affect the capability and credibility of their extended deterrent threats through alliance design. Members of defense pacts that include higher levels of peacetime military coordination are less likely to be attacked. This analysis provides support for deterrence theory in the context of extended general deterrence. It also provides evidence that should aid policymakers in designing security structures to meet their goals.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ginixx:v:41:y:2015:i:2:p:309-336
    DOI: 10.1080/03050629.2015.982115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03050629.2015.982115
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03050629.2015.982115?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    2. Douglas Lemke & William Reed, 2001. "The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 126-144, February.
    3. Curtis S. Signorino & Ahmer Tarar, 2006. "A Unified Theory and Test of Extended Immediate Deterrence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 586-605, July.
    4. 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.
    5. James D. Morrow, 1994. "Alliances, Credibility, and Peacetime Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(2), pages 270-297, June.
    6. Brett Ashley Leeds & Michaela Mattes, 2007. "Alliance Politics during the Cold War: Aberration, New World Order, or Continuation of History?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(3), pages 183-199, July.
    7. Brett Ashley Leeds & Sezi Anac, 2005. "Alliance Institutionalization and Alliance Performance," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 183-202, July.
    8. Paul K. Huth, 1998. "Major Power Intervention in International Crises, 1918-1988," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 744-770, December.
    9. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Brandon C. Prins, 2004. "Rivalry and Diversionary Uses of Force," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(6), pages 937-961, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Brett Leeds & Jeffrey Ritter & Sara Mitchell & Andrew Long, 2002. "Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815-1944," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 237-260, July.
    12. Kim Myeong Hwan, 2011. "Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade? Revisited," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, July.
    13. Erich Weede, 1989. "Extended Deterrence, Superpower Control, and Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1962-76," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 26(1), pages 7-17, February.
    14. Douglas M. Gibler & Meredith Reid Sarkees, 2004. "Measuring Alliances: the Correlates of War Formal Interstate Alliance Dataset, 1816–2000," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 41(2), pages 211-222, March.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Matthew Fuhrmann & Todd S. Sechser, 2014. "Signaling Alliance Commitments: Hand‐Tying and Sunk Costs in Extended Nuclear Deterrence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 919-935, October.
    18. Brett Ashley Leeds & Andrew G. Long & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2000. "Reevaluating Alliance Reliability," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(5), pages 686-699, October.
    19. James D. Fearon, 1997. "Signaling Foreign Policy Interests," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 68-90, February.
    20. 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.
    21. Faten Ghosn & Glenn Palmer & Stuart A. Bremer, 2004. "The MID3 Data Set, 1993—2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(2), pages 133-154, April.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Vesna Danilovic, 2001. "The Sources of Threat Credibility in Extended Deterrence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(3), pages 341-369, June.
    25. Poast, Paul, 2010. "(Mis)Using Dyadic Data to Analyze Multilateral Events," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 403-425.
    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. 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.
    2. Welburn, Jonathan & Grana, Justin & Schwindt, Karen, 2023. "Cyber deterrence with imperfect attribution and unverifiable signaling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1399-1416.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Anderton,Charles H. & Carter,John R., 2009. "Principles of Conflict Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521875578, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    8. Neil Narang & Rupal N. Mehta, 2019. "The Unforeseen Consequences of Extended Deterrence: Moral Hazard in a Nuclear Client State," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(1), pages 218-250, January.
    9. Corbetta Renato & Volgy Thomas J. & Rhamey J. Patrick, 2013. "Major Power Status (In)Consistency and Political Relevance in International Relations Studies," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(3), pages 291-307, December.
    10. Clayton L. Thyne, 2006. "Cheap Signals with Costly Consequences," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(6), pages 937-961, December.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Cullen S. Hendrix, 2014. "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behavior," Working Paper Series WP14-3, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    14. Scott Wolford, 2020. "War and diplomacy on the world stage: Crisis bargaining before third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(2), pages 235-261, April.
    15. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    16. Aysegul Aydin, 2010. "The deterrent effects of economic integration," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 47(5), pages 523-533, September.
    17. Jason Enia & Patrick James, 2015. "Regime Type, Peace, and Reciprocal Effects," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 523-539, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Geoffrey P.R. Wallace, 2008. "Alliances, Institutional Design, and the Determinants of Military Strategy," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(3), pages 224-243, July.
    20. Brett Ashley Leeds & Michaela Mattes, 2007. "Alliance Politics during the Cold War: Aberration, New World Order, or Continuation of History?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(3), pages 183-199, July.

    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:taf:ginixx:v:41:y:2015:i:2:p:309-336. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GINI20 .

    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.