SAVAŞ RASYONEL BİR DÜELLODAN MI İBARETTİR? SAVAŞIN PAZARLIK MODELİ’NE BİR ELEŞTİRİ

Yıl 2020, , 459 - 478, 23.11.2020

Sevinç Öztürk

https://doi.org/10.28956/gbd.830025

Cited By: 1

Öz

Pazarlık Modeli her ne kadar son yıllarda uluslararası ilişkiler ve savaş literatüründe ilerlemeci, analitik ve ikna edici bir açıklama sağlasa da modelin bazı eksiklikleri ve zayıflıkları bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Savaşın Pazarlık Modeli’nin ve onun uygulamalarının güçlü ve zayıf olduğu yönler tartışılacaktır. Çalışmada, özellikle, Savaşın Pazarlık Modeli’nin ortaya çıkışı, onun nedensellik mekanizması bu modelin güncel uygulamalarına odaklanarak örnekler üzerinden incelenmektedir. Bu incelemeye ¬¬dayanarak bu çalışma, teorinin savaşın nedenleri konusunda önemli ölçüde açıklamalar yapmasına rağmen teorinin mekanizmalarının mantıksallığında, özellikle de uyuşmazlık problemi, belirsizlik, “ister kabul et, ister etme” protokolü, rasyonalite ve riskten kaçınma konularında bazı eksiklikleri olduğunu savunur. Savaşın Pazarlık Modeli savaşın nedenleri konusunda hala gelişmekte bir teori olmakla beraber, açıklamaları bize ikna edici, fakat aynı zamanda kısıtlı ve kısmen yanıltıcı bir nedensellik sunmaktadır. Savaşın nedenine yönelik psikolojik ve iç politikaya dayalı açıklamalardan da faydanlanmak, teorinin açıklayıcı gücünü daha da arttırabilecek ve yanıltıcı açıklamaların önüne geçebilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pazarlık, Savaş, Eksik Bilgi, Taahhüt Sorunu, Çatışma

IS IT ALL ABOUT A RATIONAL DUEL? A CRITIQUE OF BARGAINING MODEL OF WAR

Öz

The bargaining model has emerged as a progressive, analytic, and persuasive explanation of war; yet, it has some limitations and weaknesses that need improvement. In this study, the potential strength and weaknesses of the bargaining model of war, as well as its applications are discussed. More specifically, this paper reviews the emergence, causal mechanisms, and modifications of the bargaining model of war by concentrating on its up-to-date applications to war. This paper argues that bargaining model gives us a conspicuous explanation concerning the war, even though the theory suffers from some deficits; particularly on the logic of its mechanism, the problem of disagreement, uncertainty, “take it or leave it” protocol, rationality and risk aversion of the actor. The bargaining model of war is still progressing; nonetheless, these problems allow us to have a persuasive but limited and even partially misleading explanation of war. Benefiting from the psychological and domestic explanations of war, the explanatory power of the theory might be enhanced.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bargaining, War, Incomplete Information, Commitment Problem, Conflict

Kaynakça

• Albornoz, F., & Hauk, E. (2014). Civil War and U.S. Foreign Influence. Journal of Development Economics, 110(C), 64-78.
• Anderton, C. H. (2017). The Bargaining Theory of War and Peace. The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 12(2), 10-15.
• Blainey, G. (1988). Causes of War. Simon and Schuster.
• Brown, M. E., Cote Jr, O. R., Lynn-Jones, S. M., & Miller, S. E. (Eds.). (2000). Rational Choice and Security Studies: Stephen Walt and His Critics. The MIT Press.
• Clausewitz, K. V. (1976). On War. Princeton University Press.
• Copeland, D. C. (2015). Economic Interdependence and War. Princeton University Press.
• Debs, A., & Monteiro, N. P. (2014). Known Unknowns: Power Shifts, Uncertainty, and War. International Organization, 68(1), 1-31.
• Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace. W.W. Norton.
• Fearon, J. D. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization, 49(3), 379–414.
• Filson, D., & Werner, S. (2002) A Bargaining Model of War and Peace: Anticipating the Onset, Duration, and Outcome of War. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 819-837.
• Gartzke, E. (1999). War Is in the Error Term. International Organization, 53(3), 567–587.
• Goddard, S. E. (2009). Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy: Jerusalem and Northern Ireland. Cambridge University Press.
• Goemans, H. E. (2000). War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War. Princeton University Press.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
• Lake, D. A. (2010). Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War. International Security, 35(3), 7–52.
• Levy, J. S. (1989). The Diversionary Theory of War: A critique. In Manus I. Midlarsky (Eds.), Handbook of War Studies (pp. 259-288). Routledge Revivals.
• Levy, J. S., & Thompson, W. R. (2010). Causes of War. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Levy, J. S. (2011). Preventive War: Concept and Propositions. International Interactions, 37(1), 87–96.doi:10.1080/03050629.2011.546716
• McCarty, N., & Meirowitz, A. (2007). Political Game Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• McDermott, R. (2001). Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. University of Michigan Press.
• McLaughin Mitchell, S. (2017). Dangerous Bargains with the Devil? Incorporating New Approaches in Peace Science for the Study of War. Conflict Management and Peace Studies, 34(1), 98-116.
• Mueller, K. P., Castillo, J. J., Morgan, F. E., Pegahi, N., & Rosen, B. (2006). Striking First, Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Policy. Rand Corporation.
• Oneal, J. R., & Russett, B. (1999). The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992. World Politics, 52(1), 1-37.
• Powell, R. (2002). Bargaining Theory and International Conflict. Annual Review of Political Science, 5(1), 1–30.
• Reed, W. (2003). Information, Power, and War. American Political Science Review, 97(4), 633-644.
• Reiter, D. (2003). Exploring the Bargaining Model of War. Perspectives on Politics, 1(1), 27–43.
• Reiter, D. (2010). How Wars End. Princeton University Press.
• Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press. Smith, A., & Stam, A. C. (2004). Bargaining and the Nature of War. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(6), 783–813.
• Streich, P., & Levy, J. S. (2016). Information, Commitment, and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Foreign Policy Analysis, 12(4), 489-511.
• Tarar, A. (2006). Diversionary Incentives and the Bargaining Approach to War. International Studies Quarterly, 50(1), 169-188.
• Wagner, R. H. (2000). Bargaining and War. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 469–484. http://doi.org/10.2307/2669259
• Wagner, R. H. (2007). War and the State: The Theory of International Politics. University of Michigan Press.
• Waltz, K. N. (2001). Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press.
• Weisiger, A. (2013). Logics of War: Explanations for Limited and Unlimited Conflicts. Cornell University Press.
• Wolford, S., Reiter, D., & Carrubba, C. J. (2011). Information, Commitment and War. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(4), 2011, 556-579.
• Woosang, K. & Morrow, J. D. (1992). When Do Power Shifts Lead to War?. American Journal of Political Science, 36(4), 896-922.