INR2002 Exam 2 Notes Chapter 5 Alliances def institutions that help their members cooperate militarily in the event of a war Like all institutions alliances specify standards of behavior or expectations May include provisions for monitoring and verifying each member s compliance and procedures for joint decision making Codify bargains between their members that settle distributional issues such as how each member will contribute to a common cause two states interests to others At the core all alliances is an alignment of interests between at least The main reason that states sign alliances is to signal the common Offensive alliance states pledge to join one another in attacking a third state ex The Molotov Ribbentrop Pact w Soviet Union and Germany Defensive alliance more common states pledge to come to one another s defense in the event that either is attacked ex The British and French pledges to Poland The U S has defensive alliances with South Korea Japan NATO Neutrality clause requires that each member promise not to join in any attack against an ally Alliances Commitment to security cooperation Why form an alliance Alliances form to create or preserve a balance of power Alliances form when two or more states need to combine their capabilities in order to match the capabilities of another state and thereby counter the threat to their security Canada and many states in W and Central Europe Security and autonomy Bandwagon A strategy in which states join forces with the stronger side in a conflict These alliances are often offensive Balance of power A situation in which the military capabilities of two states or groups of states are roughly equal States are more likely to join in an alliance to match a joint rival militarily 1 Bandwagoning 2 The arithmetic of balancing capabilities doesn t explain why some partners are more desirable than others 3 Not all strong powers provoke balancing Limitations to the balance of power theory How Alliances Establish Credibility Whether or not an alliance can successfully further the interests of allied states depends on their willingness to fight on one another s behalf and on their ability to signal this willingness credibly Alliances must accomplish two key tasks in order to enhance their chances of success 1st They must make it more likely that allies will fight on one another s behalf than they would in the absence of an alliance 2nd Alliances must do these things in a way that leads adversaries to believe that allies will indeed fight together The goal is to both heighten the allies interests in aiding one another and to influence the interaction with the rival state by shaping its expectations Increase the benefits and decrease the costs of war by improving the member countries ability to fight effectively together Increase the costs of abandonment failing to fight on an ally s behalf By doing so they make the expected value of fighting together higher than it would be in the absence of an alliance This coordination is publicly revealed even if the actual war fighting strategies are not which serves to put potential adversaries on notice Hand tying strategies increase the credibility of alliances States have honored their alliance commitments 75 of the time States most likely to violate their agreements are those that have In order to further these goals alliances outgrown commitments due to changes in interstate power or domestic regimes A successful alliance 1 Strong common interests 2 Alter the members preferences so fighting is preferable to abandonment 3 Credible to the adversary 4 Limits the risk of entrapment Why are alliances not ironclad Alliances involve a Credibility Entrapment Trade off Moral hazard problem A state can avoid entrapment by limiting their commitments ambiguity To control opportunism by their allies states rarely forge ironclad agreements Instead states attempt to reserve a measure of discretion for themselves on the extent of their alliance obligations ex U S alliance with Taiwan There can be a trade off between the credibility of alliances which requires ironclad promises and efforts to control alliance partners which can require ambiguity and flexibility This trade off is unavoidable The more credible the guarantee to an ally the greater the incentive for that ally to behave opportunistically ex Germany s blank check to Austria Hungary 1914 The more ambiguity the state retains in order to limit the risk of entrapment the less credible the alliance and the less successful it will be in deterring challengers More ambiguity less credibility Pre World War I Alliances pg 182 1870 Germany unites 1871 Germany defeats France 1879 Germany signs alliance with Austria Hungary 1882 Italy joins Germany and Austria to form the Triple Alliance 1894 Franco Russian alliance 1904 Britain and France form the Dual Entente 1907 Russia joins Britain and France Triple Entente seen as weak The great powers of Europe attempted to use alliance to balance Germany s rise to power While the system appeared balanced changes in relative power conflicts in smaller allies and questions of Britain s level of commitment to the Continent led to numerous crises and WWI Cold War 1945 1990 1949 Creation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO NATO covered most of the states of W Europe and bound them in a collective defense treaty w the U S NATO article 5 core provision specified that each member would consider an attack against one or more members to be an attack against them all 1955 Creation of Warsaw Pact Warsaw Pact covered E Europe and the Soviet Union and E Germany Unlike pre 1914 one state dominated each alliance group Unlike pre 1914 NATO and the Warsaw Pact were highly institutionalized A balance of power approach explains the long peace of the Cold War NATO and the Warsaw Pact divided Europe into capitalist and peacefully communist alliances The bipolar alliance structure contributed to the lack of direct conflict between the super powers Collective Security Organizations quo Form in response to different kinds of interests Universal institutions intended to deter challenges to the status Born out of the desire to prevent interstate wars Purpose is to ensure that changes in the status quo happen How is collective security supposed to work Triggered when one state attacks or threatens to attack another If it is determined that these events constitute an act of aggression then all members are called on to act against the state that
View Full Document
Unlocking...