Deterrence and Foreign Policy

  • George A
  • Smoke R
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Achen and Snidal's deductive theory of deterrence contributes very little to an understanding of the uses and limitations of deterrence strategy as an instrument of foreign policy. Lacking operationalization, their "rational deterrence theory" is incapable of predicting the outcome of individual cases. Furthermore, it has not yet addressed the need (1) to reconceptualize the problem of deterrence for different levels of conflict; (2) to refine the assumption of "rationality"; (3) to deal with the phenomenon of equifinality; (4) to develop a framework of strategic interaction between Initiator and Defender acknowledging that an Initiator often has multiple options for challenging the status quo from which to choose an action that meets his cost-benefit criteria; (5) to find a way of taking into account decision-making variables that, as case studies have demonstrated, often affect deterrence outcomes; and (6) to broaden the conceptualization of deterrence strategy to encompass the possible use of positive inducements as a means of discouraging challenges to a status quo situation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

George, A. L., & Smoke, R. (2019). Deterrence and Foreign Policy (pp. 215–226). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90772-7_11

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free