Suchergebnisse

1. Introduction -- 2. The Rational Model of Mediation -- 3. The Rational Model of Mediation : a Quantitative analysis -- 4. The Rational Model of Mediation : the Egyptian-Israeli conflict, 1948-1979 -- 5. The Rational Model of Mediation : the Indian-Pakistani conflict, 1947-2002 -- 6. The Rational Model of Mediation and the Egyptian-Israeli and Indian-Pakistani conflicts : a comparative analysis -- 7. Conclusions.

"This handbook is currently in development, with individual articles publishing online in advance of print publication. At this time, we cannot add information about unpublished articles in this handbook, however the table of contents will continue to grow as additional articles pass through the review process and are added to the site. Please note that the online publication date for this handbook is the date that the first article in the title was published online."

The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Political Science examines the factors that help to explain the political decisions and behavior of individuals, leaders, and states. What motivates individuals to participate in elections? What factors influence their support for a particular individual or political party? What are the cognitive, motivational, emotional, and psychological processes that go into leaders' decisions regarding war and peace? Does biology play a role in political orientation? Integrating ideas from different fields, such as economics, psychology, and communications the work in the Handbook provides a deep view into the thinking processes and behavior of decision makers.

This handbook is currently in development, with individual articles publishing online in advance of print publication. At this time, we cannot add information about unpublished articles in this handbook, however the table of contents will continue to grow as additional articles pass through the review process and are added to the site. Please note that the online publication date for this handbook is the date that the first article in the title was published online.

Leaders and leadership changes are found to influence states' foreign policy decisions, in particular with respect to war and peace between states. Although this issue is also addressed in the qualitative literature on intrastate wars, the influence of leadership turnovers in civil war has received limited systematic attention. One reason for this is the scarcity of quantitative data on rebel group leaderships. To fill this gap, we present a comprehensive dataset on leadership changes in rebel groups, 1946–2010, organized by rebel-month. The effects of leadership changes among parties engaged in civil war are argued to be more complex than those found in interstate disputes. In this article we present our theoretical argument followed by presentation of the variables in the dataset and descriptive statistics. To demonstrate the potential research value of the dataset we examine the impact of leader shifts on civil war settlement in Africa. We conclude with avenues for future research which might benefit from this dataset.

Leaders and leadership changes are found to influence states' foreign policy decisions, in particular with respect to war and peace between states. Although this issue is also addressed in the qualitative literature on intrastate wars, the influence of leadership turnovers in civil war has received limited systematic attention. One reason for this is the scarcity of quantitative data on rebel group leaderships. To fill this gap, we present a comprehensive dataset on leadership changes in rebel groups, 1946–2010, organized by rebel-month. The effects of leadership changes among parties engaged in civil war are argued to be more complex than those found in interstate disputes. In this article we present our theoretical argument followed by presentation of the variables in the dataset and descriptive statistics. To demonstrate the potential research value of the dataset we examine the impact of leader shifts on civil war settlement in Africa. We conclude with avenues for future research which might benefit from this dataset.

Although mediation between disputing states seems to have become a prevalent method of conflict resolution, especially in the post-Cold War era, the fact remains that in only 35% of all militarized disputes since World War II did some form of third-party mediation take place. This suggests that some conflict situations are more open to mediation than others. This study develops and tests a rational model of the conditions under which mediation will occur in international conflicts. The model explores the mediator's intervention dilemma in terms of her perceived ability to transform the game that characterizes the present conflict into a game of (partial or complete) cooperation. The measure of conflict versatility is offered to denote the likelihood of, and difficulty involved in, such transformation. It is argued that the greater the versatility of the conflict, (1) the more likely are disputants to seek mediation, (2) the more likely are outside parties to mediate, and (3) the more intrusive the mediation strategies employed. Examining data on Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs) since World War II, the authors find substantive support for these hypotheses. The article concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and empirical implications of these findings.

The international relations literature typically portrays mediators as effective agents of dispute de-escalation. Upon mediation onset rivals are expected to lower the flames of conflict and enter into negotiations. We argue, however, that the mediator's presence may actually prompt and facilitate conflict escalation, particularly immediately following the onset of mediation. Hostilities, which may be motivated by rivals' strategic need to signal resolve, may be further energized by the belief that the mediator will curb retaliatory actions. In this sense, the mediator is perceived as an "insurance policy," reducing both the perceived likelihood and the potential costs of escalation. To explore this phenomenon, we track rivals' behavior patterns in the six-month period after mediation onset in intrastate conflicts, 1995–2010. We find that in 42% of the conflicts, the arrival of the mediator was significantly associated with increased hostilities. We discuss this pattern and examine factors that might be linked to its occurrence.