Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:358Hits:19939378Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
BARGAINING BEHAVIOR (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   101888


Strange bedfellows: U.S bargaining behavior with allies of convenience / Resnick, Evan N   Journal Article
Resnick, Evan N Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2011.
Summary/Abstract Despite the ubiquity of the term "alliance of convenience," the dynamics of these especially tenuous alliances have not been systematically explored by scholars or policymakers. An alliance of convenience is the initiation of security cooperation between ideological and geopolitical adversaries in response to an overarching third-party threat; they are conceptually different from other types of alliances. Neorealist, two-level games, and neoclassical realist theories all seek to explain the outcome of intra-alliance bargaining between the United States and allies of convenience since 1945. Neorealism and two-level games theories broadly predict successful U.S. bargaining because of the United States' favorable position in the international system and the relatively tight constraints on executive power in the United States, respectively. By contrast, neoclassical realism predicts that tight constraints on executive power in the United States should have led the foreign policy executive to bargain unsuccessfully with allies of convenience. In the case of the U.S. alliance of convenience with Iraq during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, neoclassical realism best explains the outcome of U.S. bargaining with Iraq. This case has implications for other U.S. bargaining efforts.
        Export Export
2
ID:   189404


Understanding Bargaining Behavior during Civil War: How Third-party Enforcement Affects Groups’ Bargaining Offers / Park, Sunhee   Journal Article
Park, Sunhee Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract This paper provides a new approach to studying the behavior of groups engaged in civil war termination bargaining by focusing on the commitment problem. Extending the basic Rubinstein bargaining model, the model presented here has the added feature of a reneging option for the stronger group after an agreement is reached. This leads to the prediction that when groups expect the absence of an enforcement mechanism, the stronger group makes a larger concession, while the weaker group makes a more demanding offer, than would be expected according to the relative power dynamic between groups. On the other hand, when groups expect that a third-party peace operator will enforce an agreement, groups’ offers more closely reflect their relative power situation. To illustrate the causal process of groups’ bargaining behavior, five bargaining attempts during Sierra Leone’s civil wars from 1991 to 2002 are examined.
        Export Export