What Is the Enemy of My Enemy? Causes and Consequences of Imbalanced International Relations, 1816-2001The Effects of Indirect Enmity Relations on Direct Dyadic Relations (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Politics, 2007
This study explores logical and empirical implications of friendship and enmity in world politics by linking indirect international relations (e.g., "the enemy of my enemy," "the enemy of my friend") to direct relations ("my friend," "my enemy"). The realist paradigm suggests that states ally against common enemies and thus states sharing common enemies should not fight each other. Nor are states expected to ally with enemies of their allies or with allies of their enemies. Employing social network methodology to measure direct and indirect relations, we find that international interactions over the last 186 years exhibit significant relational imbalances: states that share the same enemies and allies are disproportionately likely to be both allies and enemies at the same time. Our explanation of the causes and consequences of relational imbalances for international conflict/cooperation combines ideas from the realist and the liberal paradigms. "Realist" factors such as the presence of strategic rivalry, opportunism and exploitative tendencies, capability parity, and contiguity increase the likelihood of relational imbalances. On the other hand, factors consistent with the liberal paradigm (e.g., joint democracy, economic interdependence, shared IGO membership) tend to reduce relational imbalances. Finally, we find that the likelihood of conflict increases with the presence of relational imbalances. We explore the theoretical and practical implications of these issues.
The concept of international affinity-albeit under different names-captures a central place in international relations research. This study examines how different types of affinity affect the likelihood of conflict between states. We discuss notions of affinities derived from the realist, liberal, and culturlalist paradigm and derive hypotheses regarding the impact of different types of affinity on the probability of dyadic conflict. We point out some of the weaknesses in existing measures of structural affinity. We offer a social networks conception of structural affinity-the concept of structural equivalence-which reflects the similarity of international ties across a set of different networks. A test of the hypotheses derived from these paradigms using both existing measures of affinity and our own structural equivalence measures suggests several findings: (1) strategic affinity has a consistent dampening effect on the probability of dyadic conflict; (2) trade-related affinity does not have a significant impact on the probability of dyadic conflict; (3) IGOrelated affinity has a negative impact on conflict, mostly in the 20 th century. (4) Cultural (linguistic and religious) affinity also does not appear to have a significant or consistent effect on the probability of dyadic conflict. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of international politics.
Structural Equivalence and International Conflict: A Social Networks Analysis
The concept of international affinity-albeit under different names-captures a central place in international relations research. This study examines how different types of affinity affect the likelihood of conflict between states. The authors discuss different types of affinities as these appear in the realist and liberal paradigms. They offer a social networks conception of structural affinity-the concept of structural equivalence-which reflects the similarity of international ties across a set of different networks. They test the hypotheses derived from these paradigms, using both existing measures of affinity and their own structural equivalence measures. Their findings suggest that (1) strategic affinity has a consistent dampening effect on the probability of dyadic conflict, (2) trade-related affinity does consistently affect the probability of dyadic conflict, and (3) intergovernmental organization-related affinity has a negative impact on conflict, mostly in the twentieth century.
The 1995-2018 global evolution of the network of amicable and hostile relations among nation-states
Communications Physics, 2020
There has been longstanding interest in the evolution of positive and negative relationships among countries. An interdisciplinary field of study, Structural Balance Theory, has developed on the dynamics of such appraisal systems. However, the advancement of research in the field has been impeded by the lack of longitudinal empirical data on large-scale networks. We construct the networks of international amicable and hostile relations occurring in specific time-periods in order to study the global evolution of the network of such international appraisals. Here we present an empirical evidence on the alignment of Structural Balance Theory with the evolution of the structure of this network, and a model of the probabilistic micro-dynamics of the alterations of international appraisals during the period 1995-2018. Also remarkably, we find that the trajectory of the Frobenius norm of sequential transition probabilities, which govern the evolution of international appraisals among natio...
Network Polarization, Network Interdependence, and International Conflict, 1816-2002
Journal of Peace Research, 2006
This study examines the effect of polarization and interdependence on systemic conflict. It argues that both polarization and interdependence must be conceptualized in terms of different types of relations among states and that different relationships would reflect varied levels of polarization and interdependence. Accordingly, this study develops general measures of network polarization and interdependence that allow measurement of these concepts over a wide array of international relations. Hypotheses are deduced from the realist and liberal paradigms about how alliance polarization, trade polarization, and cultural polarization affect systemic conflict. Likewise, hypotheses are deduced regarding the expected effects of strategic and economic interdependence on conflict. These hypotheses are tested using data on alliance, trade, linguistic, and religious networks over the period 1816-2002. The findings suggest that alliance polarization and strategic interdependence increase the amount of systemic conflict, while trade polarization and economic interdependence have a dampening effect on the amount of conflict in the international system. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed.
Understanding Enmity and Friendship in World Politics: The Case for a Diplomatic Approach
Hague Journal of Diploamcy, 2013
This article invites diplomatic scholars to a debate about the identity of diplomacy as a field of study and the contributions that it can make to our understanding of world politics relative to international relations theory (IR) or foreign policy analysis (FPA). To this end, the article argues that the study of diplomacy as a method of building and managing relationships of enmity and friendship in world politics can most successfully firm up the identity of the discipline. More specifically, diplomacy offers a specialized form of knowledge for understanding how to draw distinctions between potential allies versus rivals, and how to make and unmake relationships of enmity and friendship in world politics.
The Journal of Politics, 2023
When do domestic events affect international relations? Our answer to this puzzle emphasizes patterns of interaction in domestic networks. Leaders depend on coalitions of subnational actors-civilians, parties, militaries, and so on-for political survival. Structural imbalance emerges when the higher-order relations of subnational actors contradict their revealed preferences, such as when actors cooperate with enemies of friends or conflict with friends of friends. Imbalance generates uncertainty about the preferences and future behaviors of subnational actors, which in turn diminishes the government's confidence in domestic coalitions. Imbalance thus increases the probability that leaders will turn to survival strategies, such as manipulating foreign relations in order to show competence. At the same time, foreign governments respond to imbalance by implementing preventive measures or intervening for strategic gain. We develop and test these arguments from a "networks of networks" approach. We introduce generalizable metrics of structural imbalance and foreign-relations shifts. Extensive empirical analysis shows that the greater the imbalance generated by domestic events, the greater the probability that those events will affect foreign relations.