How close does a nation come to the brink of war with an opponent during the process of crisis bargaining? The present study constructs a new formal model focused on a challenger’s incentive to intensify military provocations against a defender that involve a trade-off between securing a more profitable bargaining outcome and increasing the risk of accidental war. This model identifies the conditions under which the defender’s threat of military coercion effectively deters the challenger from engaging in his payoff-maximizing level of provocations. The numerical simulations suggest that a military buildup by a nation can cause counterintuitive results, namely, the armament dilemma, depending on the balance of the marginal benefits and costs for participants and the effectiveness of deterrence. Meanwhile, a state’s military buildup always strengthens its own bargaining power relative to its opponent’s regardless of the occurrence of this dilemma; that is, the paradox of power does not arise.
AllisonG (2017) Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
2.
AltJECalvertRLHumesBD (1988) Reputation and hegemonic stability: A game-theoretic analysis. American Political Science Review82(2): 445–466.
3.
ArtRJGreenhillKM (2018) Coercion: An Analytical Overview. In Greenhill KM, Krause P (eds) Coercion: The Power to Hurt in International Politics, pp. 3–32. Oxford University Press.
4.
BaligaSSjöströmT (2013) Bargaining and war: A review of some formal models. Korean Economic Review29(2): 235–266.
5.
BlaineyG (1988) The Causes of War. 3rd Ed.New York: The Free Press.
6.
BouldingKE (1962) Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. New York: Harper & Brothers.
ChristensenTJ (1999) China, the U.S.-Japan alliance, and the security dilemma in East Asia. International Security23(4): 49–80.
9.
ChristensenTJ (2002) The contemporary security dilemma: Deterring a Taiwan conflict. Washington Quarterly25(4): 7–21.
10.
DafoeAHatzSZhangB (2021) Coercion and provocation. Journal of Conflict Resolution65(2-3): 372–402.
11.
FearonJD (1994) Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review88(3): 577–592.
12.
FearonJD (1995) Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization49(3): 379–414.
13.
GoldsteinA (2013) First things first: The pressing danger of crisis instability in U.S.-China relations. International Security37(4): 49–89.
14.
GurantzRHirschAV (2017) Fear, appeasement, and the effectiveness of deterrence. Journal of Politics79(3): 1041–1056.
15.
HirshleiferJ (1991) The paradox of power. Economics & Politics3(3): 177–200.
16.
HotellingH (1929) Stability in competition. Economic Journal39: 41–57.
17.
JacksonMOMorelliM (2009) Strategic militarization, deterrence and wars. Quarterly Journal of Political Science4(4): 279–313.
18.
JacksonMOMorelliM (2011) The Reasons for Wars: An Updated Survey. In Coyne CJ and Mathers RL (eds), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, pp. 34–57. Edward Elgar.
19.
JervisR (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
20.
JervisR (1978) Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics30(2): 167–214.
21.
JervisR (2001) Was the cold war a security dilemma?Journal of Cold War Studies3(1): 36–60.
22.
KimbroughEOLaughrenKSheremetaR (2020) War and conflict in economics: Theories, applications, and recent trends. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization178: 998–1013.
23.
KyddA (1997) Game theory and the spiral model. World Politics49(3): 371–400.
24.
LaurenPG (1994) Coercive Diplomacy and Ultimata: Theory and Practice in History. In: George AL, Simons WE (eds) The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy, pp. 23–50. Westview Press.
25.
LevyJSThompsonWR (2010) Causes of War. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
26.
LiffAPIkenberryGJ (2014) Racing toward tragedy?: China’s Rise, military competition in the Asia Pacific, and the security dilemma. International Security39(2): 52–91.
27.
NalebuffB (1986) Brinkmanship and nuclear deterrence: The neutrality of escalation. Conflict Management and Peace Science9(2): 19–30.
28.
PosenBR (1993) The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. Survival35(1): 27–47.
29.
PowellR (1988) Nuclear brinkmanship with two-sided incomplete information. American Political Science Review82(1): 155–178.
30.
PowellR (1989) Nuclear deterrence and the strategy of limited retaliation. American Political Science Review83(2): 503–519.
31.
PowellR (2015) Nuclear brinkmanship, limited war, and military power. International Organization69(3): 589–626.
32.
SchellingTC (1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
33.
SchellingTC (1966) Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
34.
SchultzKA (1999) Do democratic institutions constrain or inform? Contrasting two institutional perspectives on democracy and war. International Organization53(2): 233–266.
35.
SchultzKA (2001) Looking for audience costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution45(1): 32–60.
36.
SchwarzMSoninK (2007) A theory of brinkmanship, conflicts, and commitments. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization24(1): 163–183.
37.
SechserTS (2018a) A Bargaining Theory of Coercion. In: Greenhill KM, Krause P (eds) Coercion: The Power to Hurt in International Politics, pp. 55–76. Oxford University Press.
38.
SechserTS (2018b) Reputations and signaling in coercive bargaining. Journal of Conflict Resolution62(2): 318–345.
39.
SenesePDVasquezJA (2008) The Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
40.
SlantchevBL (2005) Military coercion in interstate crises. American Political Science Review99(4): 533–547.
41.
SlantchevBL (2011) Military Threats: The Costs of Coercion and the Price of Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
TullockG (1980) Efficient Rent Seeking. In: Buchanan JM, Tollison RD and Tullock G (eds) Toward a Theory of the Rent-seeking Society, pp. 269–282. Texas A & M University Press.
