Alliance

Scholars are divided as to the impact of alliances. Several studies find that defensive alliances deter conflict.{{Cite journal|last1=Fang|first1=Songying|last2=Johnson|first2=Jesse C.|last3=Leeds|first3=Brett Ashley|author-link3=Brett Ashley Leeds|date=2014-10-01|title=To Concede or to Resist? The Restraining Effect of Military Alliances|journal=International Organization|volume=68|issue=4|pages=775–809|doi=10.1017/S0020818314000137|s2cid=49250140 |issn=0020-8183}}{{Cite journal|last1=Leeds|first1=Brett Ashley|last2=Johnson|first2=Jesse C.|date=2016-11-10|title=Theory, Data, and Deterrence: A Response to Kenwick, Vasquez, and Powers|journal=The Journal of Politics|pages=335–340|doi=10.1086/687285|issn=0022-3816|volume=79|s2cid=55385304 |url=https://uknowledge.uky.edu/polsci_facpub/7|url-access=subscription}}{{Cite journal|last1=Johnson|first1=Jesse C.|last2=Leeds|first2=Brett Ashley|date=2011-01-01|title=Defense Pacts: A Prescription for Peace?1|journal=Foreign Policy Analysis|language=en|volume=7|issue=1|pages=45–65|doi=10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00122.x|issn=1743-8594}}{{Cite journal|last=Leeds|first=Brett Ashley|date=2003-07-01|title=Do Alliances Deter Aggression? The Influence of Military Alliances on the Initiation of Militarized Interstate Disputes|journal=American Journal of Political Science|language=en|volume=47|issue=3|pages=427–439|doi=10.1111/1540-5907.00031|issn=1540-5907}} One study questions these findings, showing that alliance commitments deterred conflict in the prenuclear era but has no statistically meaningful impact on war in the postnuclear era.{{Cite journal|last1=Kenwick|first1=Michael R.|last2=Vasquez|first2=John A.|last3=Powers|first3=Matthew A.|s2cid=9921552|date=2015-10-01|title=Do Alliances Really Deter?|journal=The Journal of Politics|volume=77|issue=4|pages=943–954|doi=10.1086/681958|issn=0022-3816}}{{Cite journal|last1=Kenwick|first1=Michael R.|last2=Vasquez|first2=John A.|date=2016-11-10|title=Defense Pacts and Deterrence: Caveat Emptor|journal=The Journal of Politics|pages=329–334|doi=10.1086/686700|issn=0022-3816|volume=79|s2cid=157263860 }} Another study finds that while alliance commitments deter conflict between sides with a recent history of conflict, alliances tend to provoke conflicts between states without such a history.{{Cite journal|last=Morrow|first=James D.|date=2016-11-10|title=When Do Defensive Alliances Provoke Rather than Deter?|journal=The Journal of Politics|pages=341–345|doi=10.1086/686973|issn=0022-3816|volume=79|s2cid=157788422 }}

A 2000 study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution found that allies fulfill their alliance commitments approximately 75% of the time.{{Cite journal|last=Leeds|first=Brett Ashley|date=2003-01-01|title=Alliance Reliability in Times of War: Explaining State Decisions to Violate Treaties|journal=International Organization|volume=57|issue=4|pages=801–827|doi=10.1017/s0020818303574057|jstor=3594847|s2cid=154260997 }} Most research suggests that democracies are more reliable allies than non-democracies.{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/31/allies-cant-rely-on-america-like-they-used-to-and-not-just-because-of-trump/|title=Analysis {{!}} Allies can't rely on America like they used to. And not just because of Trump.|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-05-31}}{{Cite journal|last=Gaubatz|first=Kurt Taylor|date=1996-01-01|title=Democratic states and commitment in international relations|journal=International Organization|volume=50|issue=1|pages=109–139|doi=10.1017/S0020818300001685|s2cid=154562172 |issn=1531-5088}}{{Cite journal|last1=Leeds|first1=Brett Ashley|last2=Mattes|first2=Michaela|last3=Vogel|first3=Jeremy S.|date=2009-04-01|title=Interests, Institutions, and the Reliability of International Commitments|journal=American Journal of Political Science|language=en|volume=53|issue=2|pages=461–476|doi=10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00381.x|issn=1540-5907}} A 2004 study did however question whether alliance commitments by democracies are more durable.{{Cite journal|last1=Gartzke|first1=Erik|last2=Gleditsch|first2=Kristian Skrede|date=2004-10-01|title=Why Democracies May Actually Be Less Reliable Allies|journal=American Journal of Political Science|language=en|volume=48|issue=4|pages=775–795|doi=10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00101.x|issn=1540-5907}} A 2018 study updated and extended the data from the 2000 Journal of Conflict Resolution study and found that allies only fulfill their commitments about 50% of the time from 1816 to 2003.{{Cite journal|date=2018|title=Reassessing the fulfillment of alliance commitments in war|journal=Research & Politics|volume=5|issue=2|pages=205316801877969|doi=10.1177/2053168018779697|last1=Berkemeier|first1=Molly|last2=Fuhrmann|first2=Matthew|doi-access=free}} According to the study, "States honored their alliance commitments 66% of the time prior to 1945 but the compliance rate drops to 22% from 1945 to 2003. Moreover, the rates of fulfillment for defense pacts (41%) and nonaggression pacts (37%) are dramatically lower than offensive alliances (74%) and neutrality agreements (78%)."

One of the most profound effects of alliances can be seen in technological innovation, due to conduits of knowledge flows that are open between allies but closed between rivals.{{Cite journal|last1=Schmid|first1=Jon|last2=Brummer|first2=Matthew|last3=Taylor|first3=Mark Zachary|date=2017|title=Innovation and Alliances|journal=Review of Policy Research|language=en|volume=34|issue=5|pages=588–616|doi=10.1111/ropr.12244|issn=1541-1338}}

File:BlankMap-World-large-limited-recognition (1).png

According to a 2017 poll by WIN/GIA, the United States was the most preferred ally internationally. Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China (CRINK), who preferred one another, both trailed America globally. Four countries, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia and Turkey, preferred Russia, despite being members of NATO.

In Pakistan, 72% of respondents preferred ties to China, the largest margin of any country surveyed, while 46% of Bangladesh preferred India. A total of 22 countries indicated a preference for the United Kingdom at a rate of 10% or more, but the United States was the only country to prefer Britain over any other, at a rate of 43%. Five countries preferred France at a rate of 10% or more, led by Belgium at a rate of 25%. A single country, Iraq, expressed no preference, while three other countries, Lebanon, Palestine, and Slovenia, expressed no preference at a rate of 11% or more, although at a smaller rate than their preference for Russia on the part of Lebanon and Slovenia, and China on the part of Palestine. Kosovo reported the most unified opinion, preferring the United States at a rate of 92%, while Russia's most unified supporters were Mongolia (71%), Armenia (67%) and Serbia (56%). In total, 21 countries expressed a preference for America at a rate of 50% or more.

{{clear}}

• Neutral country
• Allies of World War I
• Allies of World War II
• Airline alliance
• Business alliance
• Military alliance
• Political alliance
• Therapeutic alliance, the relationship between a healthcare professional and a client (or patient)
• Bandwagoning

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite book |last1=Beer |first1=Francis A. |title=Alliances: Latent War Communities in the Contemporary World |date=1970 |publisher=Holt, Rinehart and Winston |location=New York}}

{{Wiktionary|Alliance}}

• {{Wiktionary inline|ally}}
• {{Cite EB1911|wstitle= Alliance (law) | volume= 1 |last=Phillips|first=Walter Alison |author-link=Walter Alison Phillips| page = 695 |short= 1}}

{{Interpersonal relationships}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Diplomacy

*