首页> 外文学位 >The meek shall inherit the earth? Why the weak win in asymmetric conflict.
【24h】

The meek shall inherit the earth? Why the weak win in asymmetric conflict.

机译:温顺者将继承大地吗?为什么弱者会在非对称冲突中获胜。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The centrality of power in international relations has become the cornerstone of the theory called realism. Yet despite its preeminent place among international relations theories, something is amiss, as in many conflicts the weaker side is emerging victorious.; Four theories have been proposed as to why this is occurring. Andrew Mack argued that the importance of warfare is inversely related to power, and thus strong states had a lesser stake in conflict outcome. T.V. Paul has suggested weak states may deliberately pick fights where by initiating the conflict they can achieve and consolidate their gains quickly. Ivan Arreguin-Toft has argued that if a weak opponent uses an asymmetric strategy, then he will win, regardless of the power of the stronger actor. Finally, Jeff Record has suggested that it is a combination of importance, sacrifice, democratic squeamishness and support by outside powers that can cause weak actors to defeat stronger powers in war.; This study conducts a large-n empirical analysis of these theories, which provides strong empirical support for the following: First, asymmetric warfare outcomes are highly congruent with classical realist theory. The elements of state power articulated by Carr and Morgenthau are statistically and substantively significant in asymmetric warfare outcomes. However in interstate conflict, power is very strongly mitigated by distance. Second, while the importance of a conflict to an actor does impact the conflict outcome, this level of importance is wholly unrelated to power. Third, those who initiate conflict are more likely to win. Fourth, there is an underlying relationship between strategic symmetry and asymmetric conflict outcome. Fifth, democracies fight asymmetric wars exceptionally well. Finally, there is evidence to suggest that the structure of interstate conflicts may differ slightly from those that involve non-state opponents. In this latter class of conflicts, distance may play a less significant role, while strategic symmetry appears to be a more important factor.
机译:权力在国际关系中的中心地位已成为称为现实主义的理论的基石。然而,尽管它在国际关系理论中占有重要地位,但仍然存在一些缺陷,因为在许多冲突中,较弱的一方正在取得胜利。关于这种情况为什么发生,已经提出了四种理论。安德鲁·麦克(Andrew Mack)认为,战争的重要性与权力成反比,因此强国在冲突结果中的利益较小。保罗(T.V. Paul)建议,弱国可能会故意打架,通过发起冲突,他们可以迅速实现并巩固自己的利益。伊万·阿雷金·托夫特(Ivan Arreguin-Toft)认为,如果弱者使用非对称策略,那么无论强者的力量如何,他都会获胜。最后,杰夫·史密斯(Jeff Record)提出,重要,牺牲,民主卑鄙和外部势力的支持相结合,可能导致弱者在战争中击败强大的势力。这项研究对这些理论进行了大范围的实证分析,为以下方面提供了有力的实证支持:首先,非对称战争成果与古典现实主义理论高度一致。卡尔和摩根索提出的国家权力要素在非对称战争成果中具有统计意义和实质意义。但是,在州际冲突中,距离会极大地降低权力。其次,尽管冲突对参与者的重要性确实会影响冲突的结果,但这种重要性水平与权力完全无关。第三,发起冲突的人更有可能获胜。第四,战略对称与非对称冲突结果之间存在潜在的关系。第五,民主国家与非对称战争的斗争异常出色。最后,有证据表明,州际冲突的结构可能与涉及非国家对手的冲突略有不同。在后一类冲突中,距离可能起的作用较小,而战略对称似乎是一个更重要的因素。

著录项

  • 作者

    Geis, John P., II.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Wisconsin - Madison.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Wisconsin - Madison.;
  • 学科 Political Science General.; Political Science International Law and Relations.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2007
  • 页码 272 p.
  • 总页数 272
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 政治理论;国际法;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号