Rationalist explanations for war

  title={Rationalist explanations for war},
  author={James D. Fearon},
  journal={International Organization},
  pages={379 - 414}
  • J. Fearon
  • Published 1 June 1995
  • Economics
  • International Organization
Realist and other scholars commonly hold that rationally led states can and sometimes do fight when no peaceful bargains exist that both would prefer to war. Against this view, I show that under very broad conditions there will exist negotiated settlements that genuinely rational states would mutually prefer to a risky and costly fight. Popular rationalist and realist explanations for war fail either to address or to explain adequately what would prevent leaders from locating a less costly… 

Rationalist explanations for war?

TAMES FEARON'S influential 1995 paper provides a carefully argued exploration of I what can be considered to be a "rationalist" explanation for war. He first J considers a number of purportedly

The Power to Hurt: Costly Conflict with Completely Informed States

Because war is costly and risky, states have incentives to negotiate and avoid conflict. The common rationalist explanation is that war results from private information and incentives to misrepresent

Mutual Optimism as a Rationalist Explanation of War

Blainey (1988) popularized the argument that crises are more likely to end in war when two nations disagree about their relative bargaining power. This is known as the mutual optimism cause of war.

Persuasion in International Politics: A Rationalist Account

Governments offer us the promise of rewards or the threats of punishment to secure favorable international bargains, but they also draw on reasoned arguments to convince their bargaining partners to

Bargaining and war: A review of some formal models

Would perfectly rational agents always negotiate peaceful outcomes at the bargaining table, or would they sometimes fight costly wars? The Coase theorem suggests that when rational agents negotiate

A Bargain Might Not Exist : How the Distribution of Power Causes War

This paper challenges the conventional wisdom about bargaining and war. If more than two players bargain, or if war can end in stalemate, then a bargain that all actors prefer to war may not

From Melos to Baghdad:

Most bargaining models of war suggest that the absence of ex-ante uncertainty about the outcome of fighting should lead to negotiated outcomes rather than military conflict. Nevertheless, relatively

Rationalist Explanations for Two-Front War

  • Keisuke Nakao
  • Economics
    Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy
  • 2020
Abstract By extending the extant costly-lottery models of dyadic war to three-party bargaining scenarios, we offer rationalist explanations for two-front war, where a state at the center is fought by

The rationalist puzzle of war

Current rationalist explanations of war have been influenced by the treatment of war as a bargaining problem. This treatment introduces what is termed the ‘puzzle of war’. The puzzle of war depends

Explaining the Level of Fatalities in Interstate Wars

Why are some wars deadlier than others? Arguments from formal models of war and analyses of war duration suggest two mechanisms to explain how many fatalities states will be willing to suffer in a



Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes

  • J. Fearon
  • Political Science, Economics
    American Political Science Review
  • 1994
International crises are modeled as a political “war of attrition” in which state leaders choose at each moment whether to attack, back down, or escalate. A leader who backs down suffers audience

Signaling Difficulties with Linkage in Crisis Bargaining

In crisis bargaining, the sides have interests in common and interests that conflict. Both sides would like to prevail on the issues in conflict, but both would like to avoid war if possible. One way

Peace, War, and the Balance of Power

  • R. Wagner
  • Political Science
    American Political Science Review
  • 1994
Every possible relation between the distribution of power and the likelihood of war has been defended somewhere in the literature on international politics: war is least likely if power is

Capabilities, Uncertainty, and Resolve: A Limited Information Model of Crisis Bargaining

This paper presents and solves a crisis bargaining game under limited information. The sides alternate offers from three possible offers, with war and its costs starting if the target's counteroffer

Cooperation under the Security Dilemma

The model of the Prisoner's Dilemma is used to demonstrate that cooperation is more likely when the costs of being exploited and the gains of exploiting others are low, when the gains from mutual cooperation and the cost of mutual noncooperation are high, and when each side expects the other to cooperate.

Brinkmanship and Nuclear Deterrence: The Neutrality of Escalation

The defense of the United States and the defense of Europe ultimately rely on a threat to use nuclear weapons if all else fails. This type of deterrence cannot be based on a cold rational calculation

Political Consequences of Military Strategy: Expanding and Refining the Spiral and Deterrence Models

Analyses of military strategy often overlook its political consequences—its effect on the adversary's basic goals and understanding of the defender's resolve. As a result, they prescribe the wrong

Declining Power and the Preventive Motivation for War

  • J. Levy
  • Political Science
    World Politics
  • 1987
The preventive motivation for war arises from political leaders' perceptions that their states' military power and potential are declining relative to those of a rising adversary, and from their fear

Stopping the Killing: How Civil Wars End.

Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Liberia, Somalia, Azerbaijan, El Salvador, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Cambodia -- all provide bloody evidence that civil wars continue to have a powerful impact on the

Crisis Stability in the Nuclear Age

  • R. Powell
  • Economics
    American Political Science Review
  • 1989
In the logic of crisis stability, first-strike advantages may still be destabilizing, although even a successful first strike cannot protect a state from a terribly costly retaliatory second strike.