The Positivity of Peace Intra-and Inter-State: Strategizing the Balance of Peace-State in Multi-Level Conflict Management Approach

Year 2022, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 1 - 57, 01.05.2022

Mariam Ariba

https://doi.org/10.53451/ijps.1020204

Abstract

This study develops two hypergame-models of intra-and inter-state conflicts within one coherent conflict management approach, modeling conflicts while considering the complexity of real-world circumstances. The aim is to apply theories of IR and media fields, composing a merged diplomatic-strategic approach for achieving peace rather than war within and inter-nations. Using the hypergame theory as a theoretical-methodological basis for modeling, we stand firmly at some equilibria positions, specifying the modality of achieving positive peace as a “win-win” formula nationally, regionally, and globally, thence strategizing a balance of peace-state of intra-and-inter-state conflicts. It can be argued that this study’s (Positivity of Peace Hypergame Model)’s fundamental equilibrium is equivalently equal to the dual formula of (Global Hegemony of Peace Versus Realist Hegemony of War’s Inevitability) as proved strategically, applicably through our provided equations. Also, a (Balance of Peace-State Hypergame Model)’s equilibria of intra-state conflicts occur at the (Mini-Maximum Equilibrium) and (Nash Equilibrium) positions. Simultaneously, this model’s solution points of the inter-state conflicts are achieved parallelly with the occurrence of three Nash equilibria, where the success of a peace process might be “limited, normal, or multiplied” as given within its relevant equations.

Keywords

Hypergame Theory, Post-structuralism, Culture Industry, Constructivism, Nash Equilibrium

Supporting Institution

Sakarya University, Social Sciences Institute, International Relations Department; Turkey

Project Number

Doctorate Project. Student Number: D176007007

The Positivity of Peace Intra-and Inter-State: Strategizing the Balance of Peace-State in Multi-Level Conflict Management Approach

Abstract

Bu çalışmada devlet-içi ve devletler-arası çatışmaların analizinde tutarlı bir çatışma yönetimi yaklaşımı elde etmek için, gerçek yaşamda koşulların karmaşıklığı da göz önünde bulundurularak iki hipergame modeli geliştirilmiştir. Amaç ulus-içi ve uluslar-arasında, savaş yerine barışı sağlamak için Uluslararası İlişkiler ve medya alanındaki teorileri kullanarak bileşik bir diplomatik-stratejik yaklaşım geliştirmektir. Bu amaca yönelik olarak çalışmada, ulusal-bölgesel ve küresel planda devlet-içi ve devletler-arasında çatışmalarda kazan-kazan formülüne dayalı dengeli, pozitif barışa ulaştıracak bir modelleme elde etmek amacıyla teorik-metodolojik bir temel olarak hipergame teorisi kullanılmıştır. Makalede yer alan denklemlerle, çalışmanın stratejik olarak uygulanabilir olduğu ve çalışmanın temel dengesinin (Pozitif Barış İçin Hipergame Oyun Modelinin ), (Barışın Küresel Hegemonyasına Karşı Savaşın Gerçekçi Hegemonyasının Kaçınılmazlığı) ikili formülüne eş değer olduğu ortaya konulmaktadır.

Keywords

Hiper Oyun Teorisi, Post-Yapısalcılık, Kültür Endüstrisi, İnşacılık, Nash Dengesi

Project Number

Doctorate Project. Student Number: D176007007

References

• Adorno, T. (1991). (Review of the book The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture). London: Routledge. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6ce6/efebe19f39df7f016751b85cfad107a1e306.pdf
• Althusser, L., Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation). in Durham, M. G., and Kellner, D. M. (2001, 2006). Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks (Rev. ed.). USA, UK, and Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
• Butler, M. J. (2009). International Conflict Management. United Kingdom: Routledge.
• Cox, M., and Campanaro, R. (2016). Introduction to International Relations. London: University of London.
• Efegil, E. (2019). Devlet-İçi Çatımalar ve Çatışma Yönetimi (Intra-State Conflicts and Conflict Management). Istanbul: Gündoğan Yay.
• Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Foucault, M. (1989). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
• Garnham, N. (2005). From Cultural to Creative Industries: An Analysis of the Implications of the “Creative Industries” Approach to Arts and Media Policymaking in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1): 15-29.
• Gavra, D. P. & Savitskaya, A. S. (2011). Mass Media in Interstate Conflicts: Typological Model “Peace-conflict Journalism Multidimensional Approach.” Russian Journal of Communication, 4(3-4), 251-265.
• Gilboa, E. (2001). Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effects. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12(2), 1-28.
• Greiff, J. L., Bricker, M. G., Gamaghelyan, P., Tadevosyan, M. & Deng, S. (2015). Debriefing in Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution Practice: Models of Emergent Learning and Practitioner Support. Reflective Practice, 16(2), 254-268.
• Hofmann, C., & Schneckener, U. (2011, September). Engaging non-state armed actors in state and peace-building: options and strategies. International Review of the Red Cross, 93(883), 603-621.
• Hobbes, T. (1651, 1996). Leviathan. (Ed. J. C. A. Gaskin). USA: Oxford University Press.
• Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W., The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Durham, M. G., & Kellner, D. M. (2001, 2006). Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks (Rev. ed.). USA, UK, and Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
• Jespersen, J. L., Albrechtslund, A., Øhrstrøm, P., Hasle, P., & Albretsen, J. (2007). Surveillance, Persuasion, and Panopticon. PERSUASIVE 2007, LNCS 4744, (pp. 109-120).
• Jones, S. (2006). Routledge Critical Thinkers: Antonio Gramsci. Eaglestone, R. (Ed.). USA, and Canada: Routledge.
• Kovach, N. S., Gibson, A. S., and Lamont, G. B. (2015). Hypergame Theory: A Model for Conflict, Misperception, and Deception. Game Theory, Vol. (2015), pp. 1-20.
• Laughey, D. (2007). Key Themes in Media Theory. England: Open University Press.
• Morgenthau, H. J., (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Ed. 1. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Newman, E. & Richmond, O. (2006). Obstacles to peace processes: Understanding spoiling. In Challenges to Peacebuilding: Managing Spoilers During Conflict Resolution. New York (USA): United Nations University Press.
• Richmond, O. P. (2008). Peace in International Relations. United Kingdom: Routledge.
• Svensson, I. (2009, June). Who Brings Which Peace? Neutral versus Biased Mediation and Institutional Peace Arrangements in Civil Wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(3), 446-469.
• Waltz, K. N., (1979). Theory of International Politics. Ed.1. United States of America: McGraw-Hill.
• Zagare, F. C. (2019). Game Theory, Diplomatic History, and Security Studies. The United Kingdom, and New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zagare, F. C., and Slantchev, B. L. (2021). Game Theory and Other Modeling Approaches. Oxford Research Encyclopedias: International Studies Association and Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.401
• Zahar, M. J. (2006). Understanding the Violence of Insiders: Loyalty, Custodians of Peace, and the Sustainability of Conflict Settlement. In Newman, E. & Richmond, O. (Ed.), Challenges to Peacebuilding: Managing Spoilers During Conflict Resolution. New York (USA): United Nations University Press.