Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations
Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 13 Sayı: 25 Sayfa Aralığı: 79 - 101 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 02-04-2020
Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations
Öz: Over the past thirty years we observed a shift in conflict patterns where asymmetric conflicts increasingly became the norm. Building on the previous work on decision-making in asymmetric conflicts, this study compares two dominant hypotheses in the field, namely the reputation hypothesis and the capacity/interest hypothesis, regarding adversaries’ conflict behavior in asymmetric conflicts. I argue that the reputation hypothesis is more useful than its bad track record in interstate conflicts suggests. I also contend that a single hypothesis is insufficient in explaining the decision-making behavior in asymmetric conflicts. In such conflicts, the uneven nature of power/status distribution between the actors leads them to have dissimilar goals and adopt different strategies. As a result, different hypotheses may be applicable to different actors. More specifically, the state as the more powerful of the two needs to protect its reputation in order to discourage any present and future challenges. The group, on the other hand, is often the weaker actor and its choices and strategies are limited by the availability of resources. This pushes them to behave according to capacity/interest hypothesis.
Anahtar Kelime: Konular:
Görünüşü Kurtarmak: Devlet-Grup İlişkilerinde İtibarın Önemi
Öz: Geçtiğimiz otuz yılda çatışma modellerinde asimetrik çatışmaların giderek artan bir biçimde norm haline geldiği bir değişime şahit olduk. Bu çalışma asimetrik çatışmalarda karar alma sürecine ilişkin önceki çalışmalara dayanarak, tarafların çatışma davranışlarını alandaki iki egemen görüşü, yani itibar hipotezi ve kapasite/çıkar hipotezini karşılaştırarak ele almaktadır. İtibar hipotezinin, devletlerarası çatışmalarda, geçmişteki kötü performansından daha faydalı olduğunu ileri sürerken, asimetrik çatışmalarda karar alma sürecinin açıklanmasında tek bir hipotezin yeterli olmayacağı görüşündeyim. Bu tür çatışmalarda aktörler arasında güç ve statü dağılımındaki olağan eşitsizlik, onların farklı hedeflere sahip olmasına ve farklı stratejileri benimsemesine neden olmuştur. Sonuç olarak, farklı aktörlere farklı hipotezler uygulanabilir. Özellikle, taraflardan daha güçlü olan devlet, halihazırdaki ve gelecek tehditlere karşı itibarını korumayı hedefler. Öte yandan, karşı grup genellikle daha zayıf olan taraftır ve tercih ve stratejileri erişebildiği kaynaklar ile sınırlandırılmıştır. Bu durum onların kapasite/çıkar hipotezine göre hareket etmeye itmektedir.
Anahtar Kelime: Konular:
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- ARREGUIN-TOFT, I. (2001). How Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. International Security, 26 (1): 93-128.
- CLARE, J. and Danilovic V. (2010). Multiple Audiencesand Reputation Building in International Conflicts. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54 (6): 860-82.
- CLARE, J. and Danilovic V. (2012). Reputation for Resolve, Interests, and Conflict. Conflict management and Peace Science, 29 (1): 3-27.
- CRESCENZI, M.J.C. and Enterline, A.J. (2001). Time Remembered: A Dynamic Model of Interstate Interaction. International Studies Quarterly, 45 (3): 409-431.
- CRESCENZI, M.J.C. (2007). Reputation and Interstate Conflict. American Journal of Political Science, 51 (2): 382-396.
- DIEHL, P. F., (Ed.). (1999). The Road Map to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
- FEARON, J.D. (1997). Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands Versus Sinking Costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 68-90.
- GEORGE, A., & Smoke, R. (1974). Deterrence in American Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.
- GOERTZ, G., & Diehl, P. (1992?)Territorial Changes and International Conflict. London: Routledge.
- HUTH, P. K. (1996). Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes, 1950-1990. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
- JERVIS, R. (1970). The Logic of Images in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- MACK, A. (1975). Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict. World Politics, 27 (2): 175-200.
- MAXWELL, S. (1968). Rationality in Deterrence. London: Institute for Strategic Studies.
- MORROW, J. D. (1989). Capabilities, Uncertainty, and Resolve: A Limited Information Model of Crisis Bargaining. American Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 941-72.
- PRESS, D. G. (2001). Power, Reputation, and Assessments of Credibility During the Cuban Missile Crisis. Presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August, Boston.
- PRESS, D.G. (2005). Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- SCHELLING, T.C. (1956). An Essay on Bargaining. American Economic Review, 46 (3): 281-306.
- SMITH, A. (1996). Diversionary Foreign Policy in Democratic Systems. International Studies Quarterly, 40, 133-53.
- SMITH, A. (1998). International Crises and Domestic Politics. American Political Science Review, 92, 623-38.
- TOFT, M. D. (2001). A Theory of Territory, Indivisibility, and Ethnic Violence. Unpublished Manuscript, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
- WALTER, B. F. (2003). Explaining the Intractability of Territorial Conflict. International Studies Review 5(4), 137-53.
- WALTER, B. F. (2006). Building Reputation: Why Governments Fight Some Separatists but Not Others. American Journal of Political Science 50(2), 313-30.
- WOLFORD, S. (2012). Incumbents, Successors, and Crisis Bargaining: Leadership Turnover as a Commitment Problem. Journal of Peace Research 49 (4), 517-30.
| APA | TURAN K (2019). Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. , 79 - 101. |
| Chicago | TURAN Kürşad Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. (2019): 79 - 101. |
| MLA | TURAN Kürşad Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. , 2019, ss.79 - 101. |
| AMA | TURAN K Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. . 2019; 79 - 101. |
| Vancouver | TURAN K Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. . 2019; 79 - 101. |
| IEEE | TURAN K "Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations." , ss.79 - 101, 2019. |
| ISNAD | TURAN, Kürşad. "Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations". (2019), 79-101. |
| APA | TURAN K (2019). Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. Gazi Akademik Bakış, 13(25), 79 - 101. |
| Chicago | TURAN Kürşad Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. Gazi Akademik Bakış 13, no.25 (2019): 79 - 101. |
| MLA | TURAN Kürşad Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. Gazi Akademik Bakış, vol.13, no.25, 2019, ss.79 - 101. |
| AMA | TURAN K Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. Gazi Akademik Bakış. 2019; 13(25): 79 - 101. |
| Vancouver | TURAN K Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations. Gazi Akademik Bakış. 2019; 13(25): 79 - 101. |
| IEEE | TURAN K "Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations." Gazi Akademik Bakış, 13, ss.79 - 101, 2019. |
| ISNAD | TURAN, Kürşad. "Keeping Up Appearances: The Importance of Reputation in State - Group Relations". Gazi Akademik Bakış 13/25 (2019), 79-101. |
