Constarium
← Search

Data · dataset · 2007

Replication data for: Reevaluating Alliance Reliability: Specific Threats, Specific Promises

Listed in Harvard Dataverse

Previously reported empirical evidence suggests that when conflict arises, military alliances are not reliable; state leaders should only expect their alliance partners to join them in war about 25% of the time.

Description

Yet, theoretical arguments explaining the choices of leaders to form cooperative agreements are at odds with such empirical evidence. This puzzling gap between theory and evidence motivates a reconsideration of previous measures of alliance reliability.

Many alliance treaties include specific language regarding the circumstances under which the alliance comes into effect, often limiting obligations to disputes with specific target states or in specific geographic areas, and many treaties do not go so far as to require states to join in active fighting. Considering the specific obligations included in alliance agreements provides an improved estimate of the propensity of states to honor their commitments.

Read the rest (1 more)

Results show that alliances are reliable 74.5% of the time.

Links

Where it is published

Catalogue records · 1
Provenance · 1 source records, 6 field assertions
SourceKeyLast seenRaw
Harvard Dataversedoi:10.7910/DVN/55VDFM14 d agoJSON v1
FieldAssertionExtractorEvidence
created_datesource · Harvard Dataverseconnector:dataverse@1.0.0
descriptionsource · Harvard Dataverseconnector:dataverse@1.0.0/description
publication_datesource · Harvard Dataverseconnector:dataverse@1.0.0
titlesource · Harvard Dataverseconnector:dataverse@1.0.0/name
updated_datesource · Harvard Dataverseconnector:dataverse@1.0.0
version_labelsource · Harvard Dataverseconnector:dataverse@1.0.0