首页> 外文学位 >Prudence in victory: The management of defeated great powers.
【24h】

Prudence in victory: The management of defeated great powers.

机译:胜利的审慎:击败大国的管理。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

How should victorious states manage their vanquished foes to provide for stable post-war international politics? Though there is relatively little work on how states manage victory, the conventional wisdom in international relations scholarship is that moderation in victory is the only approach that will provide post-war stability. That is, defeated states should not be restricted in the post-war era, nor should the gains made by victors be too large. Otherwise, post-war stability is jeopardized.; I argue that restrictive war-ending settlements tend to provide postwar stability when there is a large postwar gap in capabilities favoring the victors and those states actively enforce the settlement. When these conditions hold, postwar stability, defined as no or only minor alterations to the settlement attempted by the vanquished nation, can follow two pathways. The first is the acceptance of the restrictive settlement by the vanquished based on simple coercion, or where the defeated state is unable to challenge the settlement and thus grudgingly endures its treatment at the hand of the victors as long as the power gap favors the victors. The second, coercion plus socialization, is acceptance of the restrictive settlement by the defeated state based on legitimacy, or where the defeated state is eventually socialized to the settlement such that it no longer desires to challenge or alter the settlement even if the opportunity arises to do so. When the gap in capabilities between the victors and vanquished is not large or cannot be perpetuated because of lack of enforcement, a less restrictive settlement is more likely to provide postwar stability.; To test my arguments against the conventional wisdom, I conduct a comparative analysis of all great power war-ending settlements since 1815. I find that restrictive settlements do in fact lead to postwar stability at least as often as lenient ones. Moreover, the comparative analysis demonstrates that the coercion and coercion plus socialization both enjoy strong support. To further probe the coercion plus socialization model, I conduct an in-depth case study of West Germany after the Second World War. The case demonstrates very clearly that the victorious states instigated a process of socialization in West Germany by constructing a restrictive settlement. By doing so, the war-ending settlement proved remarkably stable.
机译:战胜国应如何管理自己战胜的敌人,以提供稳定的战后国际政治?尽管关于国家如何管理胜利的工作很少,但是国际关系学的传统观点是,节制胜利是提供战后稳定的唯一途径。也就是说,战后时代不应限制失败的国家,胜利者的收益也不应太大。否则,战后的稳定就会受到威胁。我认为,如果战后能力存在巨大差距,有利于胜利者,而那些国家积极执行定居点,那么战争结束后的限制性定居点往往会提供战后稳定。当这些条件成立时,战后的稳定可以定义为两条途径,这被定义为对被占领国的定居没有或仅有很小的改变。首先是失败者接受基于简单胁迫的限制性解决,或者在失败的国家无法挑战解决方案的情况下,只要权力差距有利于胜利者,他们就会勉强地忍受胜利者的待遇。第二种是强制加上社会化,是被击败国根据合法性接受限制性解决,或者被击败国最终被社会化为解决方案,即使机会出现,它也不再希望挑战或改变解决方案这样做。当胜利者和被征服者之间的能力差距不大或由于缺乏执法而无法持久时,限制性较小的解决方案更有可能提供战后稳定。为了检验我反对传统智慧的论据,我对1815年以来所有大国战争结束的定居点进行了比较分析。我发现,限制性定居实际上确实导致了战后稳定,至少和宽大一样。而且,比较分析表明,强制和强制加上社会化都得到了有力的支持。为了进一步探讨强制加社会化模式,我对第二次世界大战后的西德进行了深入的案例研究。该案非常清楚地表明,胜利的国家通过建立限制性解决方案来煽动西德的社会化进程。这样,战争结束定居点被证明是非常稳定的。

著录项

  • 作者

    Fritz, Paul Brian.;

  • 作者单位

    The Ohio State University.;

  • 授予单位 The Ohio State University.;
  • 学科 Political Science International Law and Relations.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2006
  • 页码 322 p.
  • 总页数 322
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 国际法;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号