| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although signaling is the essence of diplomacy, it has often been overlooked in
previous studies on international crises. In fact, whether states in a dyad escalate
disputes to the brink of war or seek conflict resolution, both sides of a crisis use
these forms of signaling to convey their intended messages and possible responses.
However, in most of these dyadic international conflicts, the patterns of signaling
motives are not identified. In this article, it is argued that signaling decisions
depend on the interaction of contextual dimensions, perceived threats, and the
status disparity facing the states in a dyad. By analyzing both the signaling and
the counter-signaling of nations in dyadic interactions, an alternative insight is
offered into why the Korean War turned out to be inevitable.
|