What Is the Relationship Between Alliance and Militarized Conflict? Analysis of Reciprocal Causation

• Author: Hyung Min Kim,Jae Chul Lee,Jungmoo Woo
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X18819253
• Date: 01 October 2020
• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

What Is the Relationship

Between Alliance and

Militarized Conflict?

Analysis of Reciprocal

Causation

Hyung Min Kim

1

, Jungmoo Woo

2

and Jae Chul Lee

2

Abstract

Despite the importance of alliances in international politics, little is known about

how they theoretically and empirically affect militarized conflicts and vice versa.

This study aims to examine the reciprocal relationship between alliances and

militarized conflicts. The literature has focused only on the effects of alliances on

militarized conflicts without paying much attention to the simultaneous causation

between them. Thus, previous studies have not consistently revealed a relationship

between alliances and conflict. Moreover, they are limited due to the use of

dichotomous measures of shared alliance ties. Using a continuous measure of

alliance ties, this study clearly demonstrates that shared alliance ties can be

effective in reducing the likelihood of militarized conflicts. In addition, this study

finds that there is a reciprocal relationship between shared alliances and militarized

conflicts. It finds that militarized conflicts tend to decrease the level of shared

alliance ties. Then, this study argues that alliance might be added to the next

element behind the Kantian tripod as a salient factor that reduces militarized

conflict. Finally, this study points to insights to be gained from the findings and

suggests some policy implications.

1

Myongji University, Seoul, South Korea

2

Dongguk University, Seoul, South Korea

Corresponding Author:

Jae Chul Lee, Dongguk University, 30 Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, South Korea.

Email: jclee@dongguk.edu

Armed Forces & Society

2020, Vol. 46(4) 539-563

ªThe Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X18819253

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

Keywords

alliance, militarized dispute, international crisis, reciprocal causation, endogeneity

Since the end of the Cold War, we have witnessed many changes in alliance for-

mation, and recent events suggest that global alliances are set to change even further.

For example, in his inauguration speech, Mr. Trump argued, “We will reinforce old

alliances and form new ones.” There is no doubt that, as in the past, alliances will

serve as the main driver of international politics in the future. We can expect that

new alliances will be observed as the global situation changes. Then, are alliances

institutions as Keohane (1989) once suggested? If so, do alliances, like other insti-

tutions, function as vehicles to facilitate communication and reduce militarized

conflicts between states? In other words, do alliances deter interstate conflict and

lead to world peace? Unfortunately, the scholarly literature has been unable to reach

a consensus on the relationship between alliances and conflict despite extensive

work on this topic. While some scholars argue that alliances formed to help in time

of need deter the onset of militarized conflicts between contracting states, others

posit that alliances are likely to cause conflict due to the logic of the security

dilemma (Kenwick, Vasquez, & Powers, 2015). Based on the lack of clear empirical

findings on the topic, some studies thus conclude that alliances do not have a notice-

able effect on the likelihood of militarized conflicts.

One reason for this inconsistent evidence is the lack of logical awareness about

the inverse relationship between alliances and militarized conflicts. This study

argues that the previous literature does not pay attention to the simultaneous causa-

tion between alliances and militarized conflicts in the international system.

Although a state’s conflict experience might affect its decision to ally with another

state, few previous studies have tested this possibility using reliable methods.

The second problem endemic in existing studies is the lack of an analysis of the

situation in which alliances have affected militarized conflicts. In the conventional

framework, deterrence occurs in particular situations: when a challenger tries to

present a demand to a target with an ally, when a challenger with an ally tries to

make a demand to a target, and when a challenger and a target share an ally. Thus,

they do not control the effects of a challenger’s alliance and joint alliances between a

challenger and a target on the onset of militarized conflicts. Moreover, previous

empirical studies on the topic are limited due primarily to their use of dichotomous

measures of shared alliance ties. Unlike previous studies, in contrast, this study

argues that shared alliance ties should be measured continuously to improve accu-

racy because its continuous measure provides a useful platform for richer informa-

tion on foreign alliance policies. This study argues that a continuous measure

considers alliance information on all states in a system, while a dichotomous mea-

sure only focuses on information on only two states.

540 Armed Forces & Society 46(4)