Disputes between Nation- States Class 4 What is interstate - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Disputes between Nation- States Class 4

What is interstate conflict?

What can states fight over?

What can states fight over? ● Territory ● Access to natural resources. ● Ideology ● Security ● Hegemony

Domestic Pressure for War ● Interest groups can exert disproportionate influence. ● Leaders may gain from victory in interstate war

Is conflict between two states automatically an international political crisis?

Is conflict between two states automatically an international political crisis? ● Probably not. Border wars, small-scale wars with minimal potential escalation are not as big of a deal ● As devastation, potential for system increases, conflicts can become crises.

When are conflicts crises? ● Wars of territorial conquest. ○ Violates international norm against territorial conquest. ● Militarized disputes between two countries with nuclear weapons. ○ i.e. India and Pakistan. ● Dispute between a rising power and hegemon. ○ Can bring about systemic change.

Reasons for War ● Early perspectives: ○ Anarchy in the international system leads to conflict over relative power (realism) ○ Leaders misperceive the capabilities of their adversaries. ○ Leaders are cognitively inclined toward war rather than peace (Stoessinger - the guy who used to teach this class!)

Fearon: Bargaining Model of War ● War should not occur

Fearon: Bargaining Model of War ● War should not occur ○ Wars are costly. ○ Both sides know the costs. ○ Given the costs, both sides should be able to come to an agreement.

Fearon: Bargaining Model of War ● War should not occur ○ Wars are costly. ○ Both sides know the costs. ○ Given the costs, both sides should be able to come to an agreement. ● Three conditions for peace:

Fearon: Bargaining Model of War ● War should not occur ○ Wars are costly. ○ Both sides know the costs. ○ Given the costs, both sides should be able to come to an agreement. ● Three conditions for peace: ○ States know some true probability of winning war. ○ States are risk-neutral. ○ The range of peaceful settlements is divisible

War occurs due to bargaining failure Three broad reasons for bargaining failure:

War occurs due to bargaining failure Three broad reasons for bargaining failure: ● Private information and incentives to misrepresent capabilities. ● Lack of credible commitment. ● Indivisible Goods.

Private information ● Leaders may have private information that they can’t reliably share.

Private information ● Leaders may have private information that they can’t reliably share. ● This may be as a result of: ○ The potential that states are bluffing to improve on bargaining outcomes. ○ The need to maintain secrecy on military plans in case war is fought

Incentives to misrepresent information ● Misrepresenting information can lead opponents to have inaccurate picture of capabilities: ○ Some states may hide their capabilities so as not to appear as aggressors or to maintain military advantages. ○ Other states may exaggerate capabilities to such an extent that they are seen as bluffing.

Lack of credible commitment ● States may not agree even if they perfectly gauge capabilities may still fight.

Lack of credible commitment ● States may not agree even if they perfectly gauge capabilities may still fight. ● One state’s relative power may increase in the future, preventing current agreements. ○ i.e. Germany fears Russia before WWI or WWII.

Indivisible Goods ● The item being bargained over may not be divisible. ● Could be more frequent cause of war than we think: ○ Russia controls Crimea or Ukraine controls Crimea. ○ Saddam Hussein stays in power or Saddam Hussein is deposed. ○ Taliban turns over Osama bin Laden or not.

Example of bargaining model: Iraq and US in 2003 Iraqi WMDs + United States Iraq status of Hussein Regime.

True capabilities for both sides: United States Iraq

There are costs to war: Costs to Iraq Costs to United States Iraq United States

Costs create bargaining range Range where both sides can come to United States Iraq agreement

What if US has private information about resolve? Range where both sides can come to United States Iraq agreement

True capabilities are here: United States Iraq

But, Iraq thinks the US will be unwilling to fight: United States Iraq

Iraq will not make concessions within bargaining range, resulting in war: United States Iraq

OR maybe US thinks any agreement will result in stronger Iraq: United States Iraq

Making commitment impossible and giving US incentive to fight United States Iraq

Bargaining Game: Group work!

Are there problems with Fearon’s argument? Might war be more likely than he allows for? Less likely? Why or why not?

Bargaining Model and Solving disputes between nation-states

Review of reasons for war: ● Private information about capabilities. ● War as a way of revealing capabilities. ● War because of anticipated future gains. ● War due to indivisible bargaining goods.

If the bargaining model is correct, what can be done to avoid war?

Possible policy solutions ● Limiting private information: ○ Budget transparency. ○ Open war games. ○ Third-party monitoring of national military capabilities and public disclosure. ● Eliminating commitment problems: ○ Allowing for renegotiable agreements in long-term. ○ Increasing short-term costs for fighting rising powers.

What role can international organizations play in preventing bargaining failure?

IO solutions: ● Regulation for state behavior. ● Monitoring and enforcement

IO Problems: ● Agreements may not work when most powerful states are involved. ● Perceptions of bias may derail compliance.

Why is interstate war so infrequent? Does it prove Fearon right (wrong)?

Class 6 Simulation: Israel-Iran Nuclear Standoff: - Iran and Israel are both nuclear armed states. Israel has attempted and failed to destroy Iran’ s arsenal. Iran poised to retaliate. - Summit organized by UNSC Big Five. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Germany present.

Your job is to address three issues: ● Stable agreement to diffuse tensions between Iran and Israel. ● A long-term solution to the question of Iranian nuclear capabilities. A goal of non- nuclear Middle East. ● Credible third-party enforcement of any nuclear disarmament agreement.