Can Alliances Combat Contemporary Threats?

Dingli Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/016366004773097777

2004-01-01

Abstract:Hopefully, the international system will be transformed over time into one that is more cooperative—in other words, one in which alliances are less necessary. Until then, alliances will exist but will be legitimate only if they serve solely to provide collective defense.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Why Alliances Collapse?

Liu Feng,Dong Zuozhuang

2012-01-01

Abstract:There has been no due attention paid to and sufficient discussion about alliance collapse in the field of alliance politics.Although states form alliance to counter their common threats,the alliance will not dissolve immediately when the threats no long exist.There exist differences in mechanisms between alliance formation and alliance collapse,for the reason that what contributes to alliance collapse is not simply the factors to maintain alliance.In this article,we raise three mechanisms of alliance collapse:(1) the rise of external threats and previous conflict experience among alliance members may lead to collapse;(2) the more unstable the international system and background conditions are,the more probable collapse occurs;(3) last but not least,higher internal and external costs when superpower as an ally and domestic democratic polity always make alliance more stable.The authors argue that the changing conditions of background and alliance maintenance will lead to changes in alliance value,and the alliance members will make their decisions based on a comparison between alliance value and abrogation cost.Based on an empirical study of the bilateral alliances formed between 1816 and 1989 by using Cox Hazard model,the authors conclude that states treat alliance abrogation as a strategy instead of an opportunistic behavior.
Contending Ideas on China's Non-Alliance Strategy

Liu Ruonan,Liu Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pox003

2017-01-01

The Chinese Journal of International Politics

Abstract:As China's rise continues to shape its role in international affairs, Chinese international relations scholars are engaging in a lively debate about the country's grand strategy, particularly surrounding whether or not China should abandon the non-alliance strategy it has adopted since the early 1980s. Some scholars contend that a non-alliance strategy cannot safeguard China's national interests in the face of the United States' security alliance network throughout East Asia, and that without allies China's rise will be contained by the US. Pro-alliance scholars, therefore, are especially favourable towards a formal alliance with Russia. However, orthodox scholars in favour of supporting the official position of non-alliance argue that a formal alliance deviates from the fundamental principles of independence and self-reliance that have historically guided China's foreign policy. Moreover, a number of alternative strategies have been proposed to replace or complement the non-alliance strategy, among which are quasi-alliances, coalitions, and strategic partnerships. In practice, whether or not China forms alliances with other powers and neighbouring states depends on its self-defined role within the current international system, as well as its perception of external security threats. Considering both the external and internal constraints it faces, China is highly likely to maintain the non-alliance stance while pursuing other desirable approaches to making friends and partners.
Goodbye to all that? Institutionalist theory, U.S. alliances, and Donald Trump

Alexander Lanoszka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2016.1268031

IF: 5.719

2016-12-23

Contemporary Security Policy

Abstract:In an important and stimulating article, Stephan Frühling and Andrew O’Neil argue in favor of applying institutionalist theory to understand the alliance politics of U.S. nuclear weapons strategy. But what promise does institutionalist theory really hold in thinking about highly unequal alliances nested in their particular threat environments? I argue that much work remains to be done to determine how much better institutionalist variables explain intra-alliance dynamics over alternative arguments that emphasize power and interests. Balances of power and the nature of threat environments may already account for key aspects of extended deterrent relationships supported by the United States in Europe and Asia. Ironically, the implication of this more traditional interpretation of alliances is that more continuity than change will characterize how Donald Trump will manage U.S. security relationships as President.

political science,international relations
The Changing Character of International Interventions in the Early Twenty-First Century

Kai Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2017.1352445

2017-01-01

International Peacekeeping

Abstract:The past decade has witnessed a significant change in warfare, namely that no party is able to achieve decisive victory. Clausewitz-like concepts of war in imperial contexts, which interpret war as...
China's New Foreign Policy: Not Conflict but Convergence of Interests

YAN XUETONG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/npqu.11449

2014-01-01

New Perspectives Quarterly

Abstract:Despite grand visions of a cosmopolitan planet living in peace, the first globalization at the turn of the 20th century descended into World War I as the old empires scrambled to preserve themselves as others sought self‐determination. Powers on the losing end of that war reasserted themselves in yet another worldwide calamity within decades.After World War II, in the early 1950s, with the victorious American‐led alliance in the driver's seat, institutions such as the United Nations and the Bretton Woods arrangements created a global stability that enabled peace, prosperity and the “rise of the rest.”In 2014, the world order is shifting again with the rise of China reviving in Asia the very kind of nationalist rivalries that led Europe to war twice in the 20th century.Will we be able to build new institutions that accommodate the new powershift without resorting to war, or will the second globalization collapse as well? Top strategists from the US, Japan and China respond to this momentous question.
Stability,Organizational Governing,and Trust Constraint in Strategic Allies

WEI Wei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19616/j.cnki.bmj.2006.08.007

2006-01-01

Abstract:A framework of game theory is used to analyze the instability in strategic allies.The weak constraint on opportunistic behavior resulting from self-governance in strategic allies causes the instability.The game players'pay-off structure and their expectation on the future are the crucial forces to keep the stability in strategic allies.The mechanism of trust constraint on strategic allies plays a very important role in maintaining the stability.The suggestions on improving the stability of Chinese strategic allies are supplied in the end.
Seeking Support Beyond Alliance? Rethinking Great Power Partner Politics after the Cold War

Lu Ding,Xuefeng Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcaa005

IF: 2.545

2020-01-01

International Relations of the Asia-Pacific

Abstract:Since the end of the Cold War, establishing partnerships has been part and parcel of the grand strategy of great powers. The partners that great powers seek fall under the two categories of security partners and political-economic partners. Statistics show a significant variation in the proportions of great powers’ security partners. The authors argue that such variation is mainly determined by two factors, namely, great powers’ strategic threats, and their ways of maintaining national security [self-help or security-dependent (on the United States)]. Specifically, both the security-dependent great powers that are under China’s strategic threat and the self-help great powers that are under the US’s strategic threat have a higher proportion of security partners than the security-dependent great powers that are not under China’s strategic threat and the self-help great powers that are under China’s strategic threat. These findings will help to refine the current theories of great power politics.
Cultural Security of Contemporary Nations in View of " Non-traditional Security Studies"

Pan Yihe

2005-01-01

Abstract:In the field of contemporary " non-traditional security studies ", the issues of preventing potential " cultural hegemony" and protecting the security of indigenous cultures are difficult but unavoidable problems. Today, definitions of "cultural security" have quietly broadened in every country; "cultural hegemony" and "cultural threats" that people should guard against also have become more complex and interactive. The basic guarantees for international mufti-level "cultural security" require an understanding and nonabuse of cultural power, a reflection on the different models of mul-ticufturalism, and an emphasis on preserving the cultural rights of the public.
Research Progress in Alliance Stability: a Content and Comparative Analysis of the English- and Chinese-language Literature

Hui Li,Shi You Qu,Christopher M. Scherpereel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsba.2016.079384

2016-01-01

International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances

Abstract:In an era of globalisation, to publish a research article in a language other than English can significantly diminish its impact. While, in many fields of study, there is no need to look beyond the English-language literature, in emerging fields or in fields where a specific country may have more interest, investigation of local language literature may significantly increase our understanding. We find this to be the case with the alliance stability literature. Our research offers a review, classification, and organising scheme for the different affecting factors and operation mechanisms found in the alliance stability literature. We offer a more detailed understanding of the research progress by highlighting longitudinal differences. Finally, we note promising avenues for future research on alliance stability; specifically, focusing on affecting factors, operation mechanisms, evolution, and performance of alliances.
Different fears, same alliance: Multilateralism, assurance and the origins of the 1951 United States–New Zealand–Australia alliance

Michael Cohen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221077302

2022-07-12

Journal of Peace Research

Abstract:Journal of Peace Research, Ahead of Print. How do power, interests and threats influence the creation of military alliances? Under what conditions do multilateral and bilateral alliances emerge? Are shared threat perceptions necessary for alliance creation? This article addresses these longstanding questions through developing and refining theories of alliance creation and design and tests them using new archival data from Australia and the United States. The theory and empirics refine balance of threat theory through developing and/or testing other theories regarding the balance of power, threat perception, assurance, signalling and control. Empirically, the article shows that although after the 1950 Korean War the United States wanted Japan to be capable of withstanding Soviet and Chinese challenges, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines feared that this would allow future Japanese naval militarism. Truman sought to secure regional buy-in to his Japanese settlement through one multilateral alliance, given bilateralism's costs of assuring multiple allies, but had to settle for several bilateral alliances given regional refusal to ally with Japan. The findings show that bilateral alliances incur previously neglected 'assurance costs' and that alliances are possible between states with divergent threat perceptions.

political science,international relations
China’s PLAN and Alliance Maritime Strategy

Sidharth Kaushal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748921011-223

2021-01-01

Abstract:<p> This book provides answers on how allies have to prepare for the strategic challenges in the maritime domain of the 21st century. 24 noted international authors, scholars and practitioners alike, refer to areas of operation and relevant trends and developments. They include the strategic consideration of NATO’s “Northern Flank” as well as an outlook on “Naval Warfare 4.0”. The concise chapters are characterized by their scientific fundament, on which basis recommended actions are drawn. With its substantial practical relevance, this volume is of much value for academics and practitioners in the fields of international relations, security policy, and strategic studies in Germany, Europe, and NATO. With contributions by James H. Bergeron, Keith E. Blount, Sebastian Bruns, Jim Fanell, James Goldrick, Niklas Granholm, Tom Guy, Frank Hoffmann, Sidharth Kaushal, Frédéric Lasserre, Kaspar Pajos, Sarandis Papadopoulos, Chris Parry, Julian Pawlak, Johannes Peters, Pauline Pic, Deborah Sanders, John Sherwood, Dirk Siebels, Jeremy Stöhs, Bruce Stubbs, Sarah Tarry and Alix Valenti. </p>
Analysis on Stability of Strategic Alliance: A Game Theory Perspective

Chen Fei-qiong,Fan Liang-cong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.2006.a1995

2006-01-01

Abstract:Strategic alliance has suffered much instabilities since its first implementation. Scholars have carried out many embedded, precise and comprehensive researches from both theory and empiricism. Here we try to find certain stable solutions by employing game theory, in an attempt to construct theoretical bases for strategic alliance, which people called “one of the most important organizational innovation in the end of the 20th century” (Shi, 2001), to exploit its advantages in the process of globalization. Finally, this article puts forward some advices for its success.
China and International Security: How Law and Politics Work

Cai, Congyan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3790/gyil.64.1.117

2022-01-01

German Yearbook of International Law

Abstract:The history of international relations has demonstrated again and again that, at junctures of great shifts in global power, international peace is likely to be endangered by the accelerated mistrust, misjudgment, and rivalries between the new and old great powers, and that power politics may more often come at the cost of international law. As China becomes a global power, it has become more relevant to international society not only as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council but also, and more importantly, as a party to disputes. As an in-depth examination of policy and practice of China and the United States concerning security in cyberspace, security at sea, and Taiwan-related security in this article shows, while international law may make a difference, it is not enough to ensure international security. In the context of great power rivalry, politics may often prevail over international law. However, it is also likely that politics could be conducted in a manner that enhances international security. I. Introduction
Alliances and Conflict, or Conflict and Alliances? Appraising the Causal Effect of Alliances on Conflict

Benjamin Campbell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.07100

2019-08-19

Applications

Abstract:The deterrent effect of military alliances is well documented and widely accepted. However, such work has typically assumed that alliances are exogenous. This is problematic as alliances may simultaneously influence the probability of conflict and be influenced by the probability of conflict. Failing to account for such endogeneity produces overly simplistic theories of alliance politics and barriers to identifying the causal effect of alliances on conflict. In this manuscript, I propose a solution to this theoretical and empirical modeling challenge. Synthesizing theories of alliance formation and the alliance-conflict relationship, I innovate an endogenous theory of alliances and conflict. I then test this theory using innovative generalized joint regression models that allow me to endogenize alliance formation on the causal path to conflict. Once doing so, I ultimately find that alliances neither deter nor provoke aggression. This has significant implications for our understanding of interstate conflict and alliance politics.
The Cyber Alliance Game: How Alliances Influence Cyber-Warfare

Gergely Benkő,Gergely Biczók

2024-10-08

Abstract:Cyber-warfare has become the norm in current ongoing military conflicts. Over the past decade, numerous examples have shown the extent to which nation-states become vulnerable if they do not focus on building their cyber capacities. Adding to the inherent complexity of cyberwar scenarios, a state is usually a member of one or more alliances. Alliance policies and internal struggles could shape the individual actions of member states; intuitively, this also holds for the cyber domain. In this paper, we define and study a simple Cyber Alliance Game with the objective of understanding the fundamental influence of alliances on cyber conflicts between nation-states. Specifically, we focus on the decision of whether to exploit a newly found vulnerability individually or share it with the alliance. First, we characterize the impact of vulnerability-sharing rewards on the resulting equilibrium. Second, we study the implications of the internal power structure of alliances on cyberwar outcomes and infer the expected behavior of Dictator, Veto, and Dummy players. Finally, we investigate how alliances can nudge their members via rewards and punishments to adhere to their defensive or offensive cyber policy. We believe that our results contribute to the fundamental understanding of real-world cyber-conflicts by characterizing the impact of alliances.

Computer Science and Game Theory,Cryptography and Security
Should China And Russia Become Allies?

Zhao Huasheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004291645_013

2015-01-01

Abstract:As Chinese diplomacy confronts ever increasing international and regional pressures, some in Chinese academia suggest the strategic creation of a Sino-Russian alliance. This assertion claims that a Sino-Russian alliance would bring China a series of important strategic benefits and is the best option for Chinese diplomacy. This article will analyze such claims using China's principle of non-alignment, the impacts of alliances, and China's policy options to investigate the possibility and effects of such an alliance. The author believes that the non-alignment principle is a realistic limit on a Sino-Russian alliance, but in principle, it is not an insurmountable obstacle. Theoretically, an alliance would have positive consequences, but in reality its effects could not be as positive as predicted. The negative consequences of an alliance would greatly affect the long-term stability of Sino-Russian relations, and could possibly become a source of mistrust. Supporters of such an alliance have misjudged Russia as some of these arguments are based on incorrect assumptions. Therefore, strategic cooperation remains the most suitable form of Sino-Russian relations at this time.
Multilateralism in the Twenty-First Century

Ngaire Woods

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.68310

2023-01-01

Global Perspectives

Abstract:The rise of geostrategic rivalry between the United States and China is changing international cooperation. As China seeks new influence and the United States seeks to contain China and to reduce its own international obligations, three dimensions of multilateralism are becoming particularly important. The first is the management of the superpower rivalry, through formal treaties, informal arrangements among states, and international institutions. The second is the capacity of the leadership of any international institution to foster cooperation beyond the immediate preferences of one or another of the most powerful member states. The third dimension is the legitimacy on which the authority of international institutions rests. The evolution of these three elements will shape the future of multilateralism, by which I refer to the arrangements created and agreed by states which facilitate cooperation by enshrining commitments to diffuse reciprocity and peaceful dispute settlement. The analysis of history and of variations in current practice in international cooperation underscores several ways in which international cooperation could be sustained even as the US-China rivalry strengthens. Global agencies can play a crucial role finding and highlighting areas where cooperation and competition can coexist, and where their own capacities to pool information, to reduce transactions costs, and to broker and monitor agreements can assist. This, in turn, requires high-quality leadership by people who can effectively broker agreements among countries, persuade countries to pool resources, and attract and organize an effective and highly motivated staff. Such leadership requires positive ongoing action by member states, to define what is required for effective leadership of the institutions they collectively create, to seek proven competence in each domain before appointing leaders, and to monitor ongoing performance. Finally, international institutions can buttress their legitimacy by finding better ways to ensure the participation of all stakeholders, and to respond rapidly and effectively to global crises and to provide global public goods.
A Three-Degree Horizon of Peace in the Military Alliance Network.

Weihua Li,Aisha E. Bradshaw,Caitlin B. Clary,Skyler J. Cranmer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601895

IF: 13.6

2017-01-01

Science Advances

Abstract:States form defensive military alliances to enhance their security in the face of potential or realized interstate conflict. The network of these international alliances is increasingly interconnected, now linking most of the states in a complex web of ties. These alliances can be used both as a tool for securing cooperation and to foster peace between direct partners. However, do indirect connections-such as the ally of an ally or even further out in the alliance network-result in lower probabilities of conflict? We investigate the extent to which military alliances produce peace between states that are not directly allied. We find that the peacemaking horizon of indirect alliances extends through the network up to three degrees of separation. Within this horizon of influence, a lack of decay in the effect of degrees of distance indicates that alliances do not diminish with respect to their ability to affect peace regardless of whether or not the states in question are directly allied. Beyond the three-degree horizon of influence, we observe a sharp decline in the effect of indirect alliances on bilateral peace. Further investigation reveals that the community structure of the alliance network plays a role in establishing this horizon, but the effects of indirect alliances are not spurious to the community structure.
From Defense Transformation to Transformational Diplomacy——On the Evolution of U.S. National Security Strategy and Its Implications for China

Wang Weinan,Zhou Jianming

2006-01-01

Abstract:The authors discuss the evolving U.S. national security strategy and its implications for China from the perspectives of defense strategy and diplomacy strategy, which are the two essential pillars of U.S. national security strategy. Defense transformation aims to build up a military force with an absolute advantage, which will put great geo-strategic pressures on China. Transformational Diplomacy aims to promote Western democracy in key regions and states through diplomatic means, with the intention of enhancing the ability of the United States to dominate the world. However, defense transformation and transformational diplomacy are merely changes of the means by which the United States commits itself to the goal of its national security strategy. The goal per se does not change at all. This evolution of U.S. strategy will place additional pressures on China in the short run, but will inevitably lead to a decline in the global strategic status of the United States in the world in the medium and long run.
Four Dilemmas of Contemporary World Politics

R. Ragionieri

Abstract:For a long time the dilemma par excellence in international politics was the security dilemma, that was so labelled by J. Herz, but was already clearly individuated by Thomas Hobbes three centuries earlier. In much more recent times, two other dilemmas were analysed: the development and the environment dilemma (Senghaas 1994) Now, we can think that these two dilemmas (development and environment) conflated in a single one. The first dilemma had a proper meaning only in a situation where domestic politics could be sharply distinguished from international politics: in the first one there is a legitimate and a non-legitimate violence, whereas in the international arena all legitimate actors can use violence. In the contemporary political condition, the problem is not only about actors, that must defend their security, but also about the use itself of violence: when is violence legitimate. So, the security dilemma, we have to deal with the violence/non-violence dilemma. The second dilemma is between development and environment. This is more clear: for state and non-state actors, the choice is between actions that can damage the environment and actions and seem to have negative consequences on national and sometimes global economy. These two dilemmas bring to more general dilemmas (or we could say perhaps, meta-dilemmas). First, we have a legitimacy problem. What are the actors that are legitimate to decide (if there are any) about the use of violence, and who is entitled to

Political Science

Can Alliances Combat Contemporary Threats?

Why Alliances Collapse?

Contending Ideas on China's Non-Alliance Strategy

Goodbye to all that? Institutionalist theory, U.S. alliances, and Donald Trump

The Changing Character of International Interventions in the Early Twenty-First Century

China's New Foreign Policy: Not Conflict but Convergence of Interests

Stability,Organizational Governing,and Trust Constraint in Strategic Allies

Seeking Support Beyond Alliance? Rethinking Great Power Partner Politics after the Cold War

Cultural Security of Contemporary Nations in View of " Non-traditional Security Studies"

Research Progress in Alliance Stability: a Content and Comparative Analysis of the English- and Chinese-language Literature

Different fears, same alliance: Multilateralism, assurance and the origins of the 1951 United States–New Zealand–Australia alliance

China’s PLAN and Alliance Maritime Strategy

Analysis on Stability of Strategic Alliance: A Game Theory Perspective

China and International Security: How Law and Politics Work

Alliances and Conflict, or Conflict and Alliances? Appraising the Causal Effect of Alliances on Conflict

The Cyber Alliance Game: How Alliances Influence Cyber-Warfare

Should China And Russia Become Allies?

Multilateralism in the Twenty-First Century

A Three-Degree Horizon of Peace in the Military Alliance Network.

From Defense Transformation to Transformational Diplomacy——On the Evolution of U.S. National Security Strategy and Its Implications for China

Four Dilemmas of Contemporary World Politics