東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Fighting, Bargaining, and War Termin...

Beard, Steven Matthew.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Fighting, Bargaining, and War Termination: Examining How Battlefield Factors Affect When Negotiations Can End Interstate Wars.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Fighting, Bargaining, and War Termination: Examining How Battlefield Factors Affect When Negotiations Can End Interstate Wars./
作者:	Beard, Steven Matthew.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2019,
面頁冊數:	351 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International81-04A.
標題:	Political science. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=13897339
ISBN:	9781085799850

Fighting, Bargaining, and War Termination: Examining How Battlefield Factors Affect When Negotiations Can End Interstate Wars.
Beard, Steven Matthew.

Fighting, Bargaining, and War Termination: Examining How Battlefield Factors Affect When Negotiations Can End Interstate Wars. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2019 - 351 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Colorado at Boulder, 2019.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

How do interstate wars end? I explore this question in my dissertation by developing the bargaining model of war (e.g. Fearon 1995, Powell 2006, Wagner 2000, Filson and Werner 2002 and others) to include a more detailed account of war processes. In particular, I examine how military strategy affects interstate bargaining and how this relates to war termination. Several significant developments emerge from this examination. First, it becomes apparent that there are in fact two fundamentally different bargaining situations in interstate wars. Ground wars occur where the states attempt to take and hold territory and can achieve their objectives militarily. Bombardment wars occur when the states only inflict costs on their opponent through air or artillery bombardment, and must rely on their opponent voluntarily making concessions to achieve any changes to the status quo. Second, examining war termination relative to the military situation at the end of the war shows that standard bargaining explanations fail to adequately explain the actual end of most wars. Wars typically end before credible commitment issues have been fully resolved. However, most wars do not appear to involve freely negotiated settlements, as war outcomes tend not to be intermediate to the two sides' war aims and tend not to involve one side making preemptive concessions before they have been militarily lost. I argue that in ground wars, defensive advantages present commitment problems internal to the war, inhibiting war termination until one side has achieved their war aims. However, once one side, and particularly the stronger, has achieved their war aims, defensive advantages actually cement a war ending settlement. Finally, bombardment wars must end with the revelation of private information, as the combatants cannot achieve their aims militarily. However, revealing this information is difficult, as individual engagements reveal very little information. Precipitating events may thus be necessary to prompt the end of bombardment wars. I empirically test these theories with originally coded data on military campaign outcomes. I supplement the quantitative analysis with multiple case studies, demonstrating that the hypothesized mechanism does occur.

ISBN: 9781085799850Subjects--Topical Terms:

528916
Political science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Bargaining model of war

Fighting, Bargaining, and War Termination: Examining How Battlefield Factors Affect When Negotiations Can End Interstate Wars.
LDR:03530nmm a2200385 4500 001 2273670
005 20201109124827.5
008 220629s2019 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781085799850
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI13897339
035 $a AAI13897339
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Beard, Steven Matthew. $3 3551121
245 1 0 $a Fighting, Bargaining, and War Termination: Examining How Battlefield Factors Affect When Negotiations Can End Interstate Wars.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2019
300 $a 351 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 81-04, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Tir, Jaroslav.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Colorado at Boulder, 2019.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a How do interstate wars end? I explore this question in my dissertation by developing the bargaining model of war (e.g. Fearon 1995, Powell 2006, Wagner 2000, Filson and Werner 2002 and others) to include a more detailed account of war processes. In particular, I examine how military strategy affects interstate bargaining and how this relates to war termination. Several significant developments emerge from this examination. First, it becomes apparent that there are in fact two fundamentally different bargaining situations in interstate wars. Ground wars occur where the states attempt to take and hold territory and can achieve their objectives militarily. Bombardment wars occur when the states only inflict costs on their opponent through air or artillery bombardment, and must rely on their opponent voluntarily making concessions to achieve any changes to the status quo. Second, examining war termination relative to the military situation at the end of the war shows that standard bargaining explanations fail to adequately explain the actual end of most wars. Wars typically end before credible commitment issues have been fully resolved. However, most wars do not appear to involve freely negotiated settlements, as war outcomes tend not to be intermediate to the two sides' war aims and tend not to involve one side making preemptive concessions before they have been militarily lost. I argue that in ground wars, defensive advantages present commitment problems internal to the war, inhibiting war termination until one side has achieved their war aims. However, once one side, and particularly the stronger, has achieved their war aims, defensive advantages actually cement a war ending settlement. Finally, bombardment wars must end with the revelation of private information, as the combatants cannot achieve their aims militarily. However, revealing this information is difficult, as individual engagements reveal very little information. Precipitating events may thus be necessary to prompt the end of bombardment wars. I empirically test these theories with originally coded data on military campaign outcomes. I supplement the quantitative analysis with multiple case studies, demonstrating that the hypothesized mechanism does occur.
590 $a School code: 0051.
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
650 4 $a International relations. $3 531762
650 4 $a Peace studies. $3 3172392
653 $a Bargaining model of war
653 $a Conflict processes
653 $a International conflict
653 $a Peace settlements
653 $a War
653 $a War termination
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0601
690 $a 0563
710 2 $a University of Colorado at Boulder. $b Political Science. $3 1278267
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 81-04A.
790 $a 0051
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2019
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=13897339