The Armed Peace: A Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of War

@article{Levento2007TheAP,
  title={The Armed Peace: A Punctuated Equilibrium Theory of War},
  author={Bahar Levento and Branislav L. Slantchev},
  journal={American Journal of Political Science},
  year={2007},
  volume={51},
  pages={755-771}
}
According to a leading rationalist explanation, war can break out when a large rapid shift of power renders unbelievable a rising state's promise to compensate its declin- ing opponent, causing the latter to attack preventively. This mechanism does not provide a complete and coherent explanation of war because it does not specify how inefficient fighting resolves this commitment problem. We present a complete information model of war as a sequence of battles and show that although opportunities… Expand
War has its own momentum : How windows of opportunity prevent negotiated settlements
Why do wars continue even when their original causes are resolved? I offer a rationalist explanation: wars end in a negotiated settlement only when wartime and peacetime balances of power areExpand
Denial and punishment in war
Formal models of war termination have been developed along two major approaches: in one, war is interpreted as a series of battles, where nations exchange denials that aim to destroy enemy forces; inExpand
Optimism and commitment: an elementary theory of bargaining and war
We propose an elementary theory of wars fought by fully rational contenders that features three of the main rationalist explanations for armed conflicts: uncertainty, commitment, and indivisibility.Expand
Negotiating Peace with Your Enemy: The Problem of Costly Concessions
  • V. Sticher
  • Political Science
  • Journal of Global Security Studies
  • 2021
Why do some parties fail to settle conflict, even after long periods of fighting? Bargaining theory explains this through imperfect information, commitment problems, war entrepreneurs, andExpand
Self-Containment
In anarchic settings, potential rivals can be dragged into arms races degenerating in open wars out of mutual suspicion. We propose a novel commitment device for contestants to avoid both arming andExpand
Causal beliefs and war termination
This article analyzes the length of interstate wars and the process of reaching a mutually acceptable bargaining solution. Rational choice scholarship has mainly sought to explain long wars in termsExpand
Chapter ??? Commitment Problems and Shifting Power as a Cause of Conflict
Commitment Problems and Shifting Power as a Cause of Conflict Robert Powell Decades ahead of his time, Thomas Schelling emphasized that “most conflict situations are essentially bargainingExpand
Incentives for Peace
Why are some peace agreements successful while others fail? In this paper I study under what conditions there exist successful peace contracts that guarantee peace as the unique equilibrium of anExpand
Fighting rather than Bargaining
If bargaining is understood to involve the continuous exchange of offers that have a positive chance of being accepted, then virtually all interstate and civil wars involve signi cant periods inExpand
Seeking No War, Achieving No Peace: The Conflict over the Siachen Glacier
ABSTRACT This paper models ‘no war, no peace’ situations in a game theoretical framework where two countries are engaged in a standoff over a military sector. The first main objective is to identifyExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 50 REFERENCES
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 misrepresentExpand
The Principle of Convergence in Wartime Negotiations
If war results from disagreement about relative strength, then it ends when opponents learn enough about each other. Learning occurs when information is revealed by strategically manipulableExpand
War as a Commitment Problem
  • R. Powell
  • Sociology, Economics
  • International Organization
  • 2006
Although formal work on war generally sees war as a kind of bargaining breakdown resulting from asymmetric information, bargaining indivisibilities, or commitment problems, most analyses have focusedExpand
Military Coercion in Interstate Crises
Military mobilization simultaneously sinks costs, because it must be paid for regardless of the outcome, and ties hands, because it increases the probability of winning should war occur. ExistingExpand
Mutual Optimism and War
Working with the definition of mutual optimism as war due to inconsistent beliefs, we formalize the mutual optimism argument to test the theory's logical validity. We find that in the class ofExpand
The War Ledger
"The War Ledger" provides fresh, sophisticated answers to fundamental questions about major modern wars: Why do major wars begin? What accounts for victory or defeat in war? How do victory and defeatExpand
Rationalist explanations for war
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 veryExpand
Guns, Butter, and Anarchy
A state in the international system implicit in realism must allocate its limited resources between satisfying its intrinsically valued ends and the means of military power. I formalize thisExpand
Fully Informed and on the Road to Ruin: The Perfect Failure of Asymmetric Deterrence
Most theoretical and formal arguments about rational deterrence assume that war is a game-ending move. In the asymmetric case, the logic of deterrent threats then rests on the relative merits of warExpand
Bargaining and Learning While Fighting
Much of the existing formal work on war models the decision to go to war as a game-ending, costly lottery. This article relaxes this assumption by treating war as a costly process during which theExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...