Perceptions of Adversary Preferences for Accommodation and Coercion and their Effect on Conflict

Ph.D. Dissertation, University at Buffalo (State University of New York)

Abstract:

Is war unavoidable? It is no mystery that the issues nations confront each other over sometimes result in violence and unnecessary human suffering, while others are resolved peacefully through diplomacy. The question as to why one and not the other has always remained at the forefront of international relations research. In fact, it was in the ashes of two world wars, of which destroyed over 100 million lives, where this inquiry earnestly began. Like so many before, this dissertation seeks to contribute to our collective knowledge – even if incrementally – as to why nations may traverse farther onto the path of war. I contend that the foreign policy decisions of nations seized by international disputes are influenced, in part, by perceptions of how inclined their adversaries are in resolving interstate issues through accommodation or coercion. Specifically, I hypothesize that nations rely on information derived from their adversaries’ conflict history and public statements to respond in accordance with a strategy of reciprocation. This translates to nations pursuing more accommodative policies – like appeals for negotiation, mediation, or adjudication – when adversaries covey a willingness for such reconciliation processes, and more coercive policies – like the issuing of military threats, the imposition of economic sanctions, or the use of armed force – when adversaries project a predilection towards bullying. Through a survey experiment and statistical analysis of real conflict data, I provide evidence to support my theory.

Publication