IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/defpea/v35y2024i7p792-808.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Entente versus Alliance: When Should States Be Friends but Not Allies?

Author

Listed:
  • Emerson Niou
  • Sean M. Zeigler

Abstract

When faced with a common threat, states have various alignment choices. Formal alliances offer explicit military obligations of support. Others, such as the Triple Entente that preceded World War I, are more ambiguous understandings. These entente-like alignments make no formal pledges of armed support in the event of hostilities. However, they do not entirely rule out military support either. Why might states embrace this form of strategic ambiguity over firm alliance commitments? Our formal explication addresses this question via the prism of collective action. Our modeling efforts, combined with historical precedents, suggest that an entente might be a more effective alignment choice than a formal alliance for states to balance against powerful threats. An entente permits states to strike the middle ground between entrapment and deterrence. The strategic ambiguity inherent in these two seemingly self-contradictory goals of an entente is a key component of its success as an alignment strategy, especially when external threats are large. However, asymmetry in strength between two states can result in divergent preferences between alliance and entente.

Suggested Citation

  • Emerson Niou & Sean M. Zeigler, 2024. "Entente versus Alliance: When Should States Be Friends but Not Allies?," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(7), pages 792-808, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:35:y:2024:i:7:p:792-808
    DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2023.2213468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10242694.2023.2213468
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10242694.2023.2213468?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:defpea:v:35:y:2024:i:7:p:792-808. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GDPE20 .

    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.