Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter May 23, 2019

Regional Alliance Structure and International Conflict

Kentaro Sakuwa
From the journal World Political Science

Abstract

Why are some regions more peaceful than others? Some regions are particularly plagued by traditional power politics and political tensions, while the danger of war between major actors has significantly declined in other regions. The conventional literature would answer the question from a dyadic perspective—a region with many states with certain set of traits, such as democracy, should be peaceful. However, it is ultimately an empirical question whether the prevalence of power politics and conflict can be solely explained by the type of states and dyads in a region. I argue that the nature of international interactions is shaped by regional-level environment. Due to local security externalities, dyadic politics and conflict is dependent on conditions in a local neighborhood. More specifically, this study focuses on the role of regional-level alliance structure. A region can be situated in various types of alliance configuration depending on global geopolitical climate. I argue that conflict is unlikely in a region in which a global power establishes hegemonic domination through alliance ties with local states. The presence of an external global power dominating a region provides a local enforcement mechanism and reassurance for local states, which in turn reduces hostile interactions among local states. To examine how the regional-level conditions influence dyadic-level politics among local states, this paper empirically analyzes political events data (Integrated Data for Events Analysis) applying multilevel modeling, aiming at contributing the literature by explicitly modeling the influence of regional-level variables on local politics beyond militarized disputes. Empirical analysis revealed that a regionally shared “patron” can promote peace between local states. However, the effect of regional hierarchy turned out to be indirect. Regional dominance structured by an external global power does not exert an overarching influence over an entire region by shifting the region-specific intercept. Rather, the regional-level global power domination in terms of defense pacts particularly influences powerful states in a region while not quite reducing hostility among “minor” local states. Thus, international conflict and hostility is indirectly constrained in a region under hegemonic domination by a global power. This study has empirically explored an argument that it is fruitful to go beyond a purely dyadic analysis of international conflict. The independent effect of a spatial environment means that even similar dyads may behave differently depending on the conditions surrounding them. It shows a need to reexamine some of the important findings about international conflict from a spatial perspective, taking into account macro-regional contexts within which states operate. Moreover, the introduction of regional contexts potentially bridges a gap between quantitative studies of international conflict and more area-specific studies.

References

Bond, Doug, Joe Bond and Churl Oh, J. Craig Jenkins and Charles Lewis Taylor (2003) “Integrated Data for Events Analysis (IDEA): An Event Typology for Automated Events Data Development,” Journal of Peace Research, 40(6):733–745. Search in Google Scholar

Bremer, Stuart A. (1992) “Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816–1965,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2):309–341. Search in Google Scholar

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson and Alastair Smith (1999) “An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace,” American Political Science Review, 93(4):791–807. Search in Google Scholar

Buhaug, Halvard and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch (2008) “Contagion or Confusion? Why Conflicts Cluster in Space,” International Studies Quarterly, 52(2):215–233. Search in Google Scholar

Dafoe, Allan (2011) “Statistical Critiques of the Democratic Peace: Caveat Emptor,” American Journal of Political Science, 55(2):247–262. Search in Google Scholar

Dittmer, Lowell (1981) “The Strategic Triangle: An Elementary Game-Theoretical Analysis,” World Politics, 33(4):485–515. Search in Google Scholar

Fordham, Benjamin O. (2011) “Who Wants to Be a Major Power? Explaining the Expansion of Foreign Policy Ambition,” Journal of Peace Research, 48(5):587–603. Search in Google Scholar

Gartzke, Erik (2007) “The Capitalist Peace,” American Journal of Political Science, 51(1): 166–191. Search in Google Scholar

Gibler, Douglas M. (2009) International Military Alliances, 1648–2008. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Search in Google Scholar

Goldstein, J. S. (1992) “A Conflict-Cooperation Scale for WEIS Events Data,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2):369–385. Search in Google Scholar

Greig, J. Michael and Andrew J. Enterline (2010) “National Material Capabilities Data Documentation Version 4.0.”. Search in Google Scholar

Katzenstein, Peter J. (2005) A World of Regions: Asia And Europe in the American Imperium. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Search in Google Scholar

King, Gary and Will Lowe (2003) “An Automated Information Extraction Tool for International Conflict Data with Performance as Good as Human Coders: A Rare Events Evaluation Design,” International Organization, 57(03):617–642. Search in Google Scholar

Lake, David A. (1997) “Regional Security Complexes: A Systems Approach.” In: Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 45–67. Search in Google Scholar

Lake, David A. (2007) “Escape from the State of Nature: Authority and Hierarchy in World Politics Escape from the State of Nature,” International Security, 32(1):47–79. Search in Google Scholar

Lake, David A. (2009) “Regional Hierarchy: Authority and Local International Order,” Review of International Studies, 35(1):35–58. Search in Google Scholar

Lemke, Douglas (2010) “Dimensions of Hard Power: Regional Leadership and Material Capabilities.” In: (Daniel Flemes, ed.) Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 31–50. Search in Google Scholar

Luke, Douglas A. (2004) Multilevel Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage. Search in Google Scholar

Maoz, Zeev and Errol A. Henderson (2013) “The World Religion Dataset, 1945–2010: Logic, Estimates, and Trends,” International Interactions, 39(3):265–291. Search in Google Scholar

Maoz, Zeev, Lesley G. Terris, Ranan D. Kuperman and Ilan Talmud (2007) “What Is My Enemy Enemy? The of Causes and Consequences of Imbalanced International,” Journal of Politics, 69(1):100–115. Search in Google Scholar

Marshall, Monty G., Keith Jaggers and Ted Robert Gurr (2010) Polity IV Project Dataset Users’ Manual. Vienna, VA, USA: Center for Systemic Peace. Search in Google Scholar

Mattli, Walter (1999) The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Organski, A. F. K. (1958) World Politics. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Search in Google Scholar

Pevehouse, Jon C. (2004) “Interdependence Theory and the Measurement of International Conflict Interdep,” The Journal of Politics, 66(1):247–266. Search in Google Scholar

Powell, Robert (1996) “Uncertainty, Shifting Power, and Appeasement,” American Political Science Review, 90(4):749–764. Search in Google Scholar

Ripsman, Norrin M. (2005) “Two Stages of Transition from a Region of War to a Region of Peace: Realist Transition and Liberal Endurance,” International Studies Quarterly, 49(4):669–694. Search in Google Scholar

Rosato, Sebastian (2011) “Europe’s Troubles: Power Politics and the State of the European Project,” International Security, 35(4):45–86. Search in Google Scholar

Russett, Bruce and John Oneal (2001) Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Search in Google Scholar

Schultz, Kenneth A. (1998) “Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises,” American Political Science Review, 92(4):829. Search in Google Scholar

Solingen, Etel (2007) “Pax Asiatica versus Bella Levantina: The Foundations of War and Peace in East Asia and the Middle East,” American Political Science Review, 101(4):757–780. Search in Google Scholar

Starr, Harvey and G. Dale Thomas (2005) “The Nature of Borders and International Conflict : Revisiting Hypotheses on Territory,” International Studies Quarterly, 49(1):123–139. Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, William R. and David R. Dreyer (2011) Handbook of International Rivalries, 1494–2010. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2019-05-23
Published in Print: 2019-05-27

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston