IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v24y2007i1p65-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Limited Conflicts

Author

Listed:
  • D. Marc Kilgour

    (Department of Mathematics Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario, Canada)

  • Frank C. Zagare

    (Department of Political Science University at Buffalo, SUNY Buffalo, New York, USA, fczagare@buffalo.edu)

Abstract

This report uses a generic two-stage escalation model to ask whether and when limited conflicts can occur. There are two players in the model: Challenger and Defender. Challenger can either initiate a conflict or not. If Challenger initiates, Defender can concede, respond-in-kind, or escalate. If Defender does not concede, Challenger can escalate. The process continues until one side concedes or both escalate. Limited conflicts do not occur in our model when information is complete or when Defender's threat to respond-in-kind is seen to be completely noncredible. They are also extremely unlikely when Defender is seen strictly to prefer a response-in-kind to immediate capitulation when challenged. Limited conflicts are most probable under a Constrained Limited-Response Equilibrium (CLRE). Constrained Limited-Response Equilibria only occur when there is uncertainty about Defender's willingness to respond-in-kind to an initiation. The conditions associated with the existence of a CLRE and the other equilibria of the model are illustrated, both graphically and via a numerical example. Typically, under a CLRE, Challenger initiates and Defender concedes. From time to time, however, Challenger misjudges Defender's intentions and is surprised by a limited response. At this point, Defender chooses not to escalate the conflict because it concludes that Defender will counter-escalate and an all-out conflict will occur. Real-life examples of this process include the Gulf War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Fashoda Crisis of 1898, and the Korean crisis of 1950.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Marc Kilgour & Frank C. Zagare, 2007. "Explaining Limited Conflicts," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(1), pages 65-82, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:24:y:2007:i:1:p:65-82
    DOI: 10.1080/07388940601102852
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/07388940601102852
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07388940601102852?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Powell, Robert, 1987. "Crisis Bargaining, Escalation, and MAD," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(3), pages 717-735, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Klaus Abbink & Jordi Brandts, 2016. "Political autonomy and independence: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(3), pages 461-496, July.
    2. Kyle Beardsley & Victor Asal, 2009. "Nuclear Weapons as Shields," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(3), pages 235-255, July.
    3. Dong-Joon Jo & Erik Gartzke, 2007. "Determinants of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 167-194, February.
    4. Kai A. Konrad & Florian Morath, 2016. "Evolutionary determinants of war," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 520-534, August.
    5. Kyle Beardsley & Victor Asal, 2009. "Winning with the Bomb," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(2), pages 278-301, April.
    6. HEIFETZ, Aviad & SEGEV, Ella, 2003. "Escalation and delay in protracted international conflicts," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2003048, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Hoffmann, Magnus, 2007. "The Social Benefit of War," MPRA Paper 6196, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Keisuke Iida, 1993. "When and How Do Domestic Constraints Matter?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 403-426, September.
    9. Frank C. Zagare, 2004. "Reconciling Rationality with Deterrence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 107-141, April.
    10. Heifetz, Aviad & Segev, Ella, 2005. "Escalation and delay in protracted international conflicts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 17-37, January.
    11. Acharya, Avidit & Grillo, Edoardo, 2015. "War with Crazy Types," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 281-307, May.
    12. Lisa J. Carlson, 1995. "A Theory of Escalation And International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(3), pages 511-534, September.
    13. Smith, Celina & Nordqvist, Mattias & De Massis, Alfredo & Miller, Danny, 2021. "When so much is at stake: Understanding organizational brinkmanship in family business," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(4).
    14. Kim, Jin Yeub, 2018. "Counterthreat of attack to deter aggression," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 112-114.
    15. Kyungkook Kang & Jacek Kugler, 2015. "Assessment of deterrence and missile defense in East Asia: A power transition perspective," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 18(3), pages 280-296, September.
    16. Randall W. Stone, 2001. "The Use and Abuse of Game Theory in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(2), pages 216-244, April.
    17. Keisuke Nakao, 2022. "Denial and punishment in war," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(2), pages 166-179, March.
    18. Shawn L. Ramirez, 2018. "Mediation in the shadow of an audience: How third parties use secrecy and agenda-setting to broker settlements," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(1), pages 119-146, January.
    19. R. Harrison Wagner, 1992. "Rationality and Misperception in Deterrence Theory," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(2), pages 115-141, April.
    20. Patrick Hummel, 2015. "Strategic ambiguity about military capacity with multiple adversaries," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 288-300, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:24:y:2007:i:1:p:65-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.