Home An Overview of the Influence of Domestic Constraints on Crisis Initiation and Termination
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

An Overview of the Influence of Domestic Constraints on Crisis Initiation and Termination

  • Lisa J. Carlson and Raymond Dacey EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: December 17, 2013

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide a formal model of the effects of domestic constraints upon crisis initiation and crisis termination. The model treated here is distilled from an extension of the two-sided incomplete information version of the traditional deterrence game. We employ a two-stage analysis of the decision problem faced by Challenger that formally links the onset of a crisis to the decision over whether to escalate or to back down in a crisis should the Challenger face resistance from the Defender. The results have interesting implications for the empirical analysis of international and domestic interactions, and crisis initiation in particular, in that it provides a foundation for displaying the mechanism of interdependence of crisis initiation and crisis termination.


Corresponding author: Raymond Dacey, Department of Business, College of Business and Economics, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843-3161, USA, E-mail:

References

Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow. (2005), The Logic of Political Survival, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Search in Google Scholar

Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson, and Alastair Smith. (1999), An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace, American Political Science Review, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 791–807.Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, Jeffrey. (2009), What Causes Civil War? Integrating Quantitative Research Findings, International Studies Review, vol. 11, pp. 707–735.Search in Google Scholar

Florea, Adrian. (2012), Where Do We Go from Here? Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological Gaps in the Large-N Civil War Research Program, International Studies Review, vol. 14, pp. 78–98.Search in Google Scholar

Gelpi, Christopher. (1997), Democratic Diversions, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 255–282.Search in Google Scholar

Gurses, Mehmet and T. David Mason. (2010), Weak States, Regime Types, and Civil Wars, Civil War, vol. 12, no. 1–2, pp. 140–155.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Ross A. (1995), Democratic Structures and the Diversionary Use of Force, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 760–785.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Ross A. Elgün Özlem. (2011), Diversion and Political Survival in Latin America, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 192–219.Search in Google Scholar

Morrow, James D. (1994), Game Theory for Political Scientists, Princeton, Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Reed, William. (2000), A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 84–93.Search in Google Scholar

Tunçer-Kilavuz, Idil. (2011), Understanding Civil War: A Comparison of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 263–290.Search in Google Scholar

Weeks, Jessica L. (2012), Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and the Initiation of International Conflict, American Political Science Review, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 326–347.Search in Google Scholar

Zagare, Frank C. and D. Marc Kilgour. (1993), Asymmetric Deterrence, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–27.Search in Google Scholar

Zagare, Frank C. and D. Marc Kilgour. (2000), Perfect Deterrence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511491788Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2013-12-17
Published in Print: 2013-12-01

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston

Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/peps-2013-0033/html
Scroll to top button