Negotiated settlements, formal treaties to unilateral cease-fires, are often accepted to be the preferable method to end war. When negotiated agreements are used in the normal business of international politics they can be potentially helpful devices; however, when they are relied upon for a nation's security or war prevention and conclusion they can prove disastrous. It is the presence of force variables, and not the formality of an agreement which effectively concludes a war. I recategorize success of an agreement to not only mean failure of a return to war, but also whether the tenets of an agreement are actually followed. I utilize a modified version of Fortna's conflict dataset and run three separate logit analyses to test the effectiveness of settlements in a medium n quantitative analysis. If politicians and policy makers realize that it is not treaties that establish peace but the costs of war and military might then perhaps the world will be a more peaceful place.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:unt.edu/info:ark/67531/metadc177217 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Kendall, David F. |
| Contributors | Enterline, Andrew J., Greig, J. Michael, Mason, David |
| Publisher | University of North Texas |
| Source Sets | University of North Texas |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis or Dissertation |
| Format | Text |
| Rights | Public, Kendall, David F., Copyright, Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise noted. All rights Reserved. |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds