fbpx
Wikipedia

Military alliance

April 12, 2024

A military alliance is a formal agreement between nations that specifies mutual obligations regarding national security. In the event a nation is attacked, members of the alliance are often obligated to come to their defense regardless if attacked directly. Military alliances can be classified into defense pacts, non-aggression pacts, and ententes. Alliances may be covert (as was common from 1870 to 1916) or public.[1]

European military alliances prior to World War I
  Triple Entente
  Triple Alliance
Two military alliances (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Warsaw Pact) in Europe during the Cold War

According to a 2002 dataset of military alliances, there have been 538 alliance treaties from 1815 to 2003.[2] The vast majority of the alliances involve commitments to come to the military support of one ally involved in war.[2] The vast majority are defensive in nature.[2] Since the end of the Second World War, military alliances have usually behaved less aggressively and act more as a deterrent.[3]

Characteristics edit

Military alliances are related to collective security systems but can differ in nature. An early 1950s memorandum from the United States Department of State explained the difference by noting that historically, alliances "were designed to advance the respective nationalistic interests of the parties, and provided for joint military action if one of the parties in pursuit of such objectives became involved in war." A collective security arrangement "is directed against no one; it is directed solely against aggression. It seeks not to influence any shifting 'balance of power' but to strengthen the 'balance of principle.'"[4]

The obvious motivation in states engaging in military alliances is to protect themselves against threats from other countries. However, states have also entered into alliances to improve ties with a particular nation or to manage conflict with a particular nation.[5]

The nature of alliances, including their formation and cohesiveness (or lack thereof), is a subject of much academic study past and present. Influential works include those by Glenn Snyder, Stephen Walt,[6] and Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz outlined in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics a neorealist theory of international politics where he argued that balances of power tend to form in world politics.[7] Alongside neoliberalism, neorealism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to the study of military alliances in international relations; the two perspectives dominated international relations theory from the 1960s to the 1990s.[8] Neorealism emerged from the North American discipline of political science, and reformulates the understanding of military alliances in the classical realist tradition of E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr. Neorealism is subdivided into defensive and offensive neorealism.

During peace-time, according to a 2019 study, almost all alliances from 1870 to 1916 may have been covert or implied. In other time periods, covert alliances have been rare. The study argues that from 1870 to 1916, the unusual amount of covert alliances was incentivized by other covert alliances. The creation of public alliances would signal to the covert ally that the public alliance was more valuable.[1] According to Ronald Krebs, pre-WWII alliances were generally "relatively simple, short-lived affairs."[9]

Common problems for alliances revolve around free-riding and burden-sharing.[10] Members of an alliance have incentives not to contribute to the alliance while simultaneously benefiting on the public goods provided by the alliance. According to Mancur Olson and Richard Zeckhauser's classic study of alliances, small states frequently free-ride on the large state's contributions to an alliance.[11] Small allies that are militarily vulnerable are less likely to free-ride, whereas strategically important small allies are most likely to free-ride.[12] Alliances may also lead to moral hazard whereby allies behave more aggressively and recklessly if they believe that the alliance will aid them in any conflict.[13][14] On the whole, alliances do deter aggression on net.[15]

Within alliances, actors may fear entrapment or abandonment.[16][17][18] Entrapment means that allies get dragged into a conflict over one ally's interests that the other allies do not share.[16] Scholars have disputed the prevalence of entrapment,[19] with Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth writing "it is nearly impossible to find a clear case of entrapment actually occurring."[20] Abandonment means that allies do not come to the rescue of a fellow ally.[16] Strong commitments to an alliance can reduce the bargaining power of that ally vis-a-vis the other allies.[16] However, an ally whose commitment to the alliance is in doubt has greater bargaining leverage.[16] Weak alliance commitments can make it easier for the ally to realign the alliance if a fellow ally is considered unsatisfactory.[16] Strong alliance commitments may strengthen the adversary's alliance, as the adversary may face a greater threat.[16]

The failure of a strong ally to come to the rescue of a weaker ally (abandonment) may jeopardize the strong ally's other alliances. However, it may also strengthen the other alliances, as the other allies may sometimes prefer that the strong ally abandons a weak ally if it is likely to raise the risks of military escalation for the other allies.[21]

European historiography edit

In the European historical context, a military alliance can be viewed as a league between independent states, defined by treaty, for the purpose of combined action, defensive or offensive, or both. The oldest such alliance in the world today is the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, dating back to 1373 where the then Kingdoms of England and Portugal pledged to "perpetual friendship" between the two countries. This remains in action today between the current United Kingdom and Portugal, and the two have never fought against each other in any military campaign. Alliances have often been directed to specific objects carefully defined in the treaties. Thus the Triple Alliance of 1668 between Great Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands, and the Grand Alliance of 1689 between the Holy Roman Empire, Holland, England, Spain and Saxony, were both directed against the power of Louis XIV of France. The Quadruple or Grand Alliance of 1814, defined in the Treaty of Chaumont, between Great Britain, Austria, Russia and Prussia, had for its object the overthrow of Napoleon and his dynasty, and the confining of France within her traditional boundaries. The Triple Alliance of 1882 between Germany, Austria and Italy was ostensibly directed to the preservation of European peace against any possible aggressive action of France or Russia; and this led in turn, some ten years later, to the Dual Alliance between Russia and France, for mutual support in case of any hostile action of the other powers.[22]

Occasionally, however, attempts have been made to give alliances a more general character. Thus the Holy Alliance of 26 September 1815 was an attempt, inspired by the religious idealism of the Emperor Alexander I of Russia, to find in the "sacred precepts of the Gospel",[22] a common basis for a general league of the European governments, its object being, primarily, the preservation of peace. So, too, by Article VI of the Quadruple Treaty signed at Paris on 20 November 1815 – which renewed that of Chaumont and was again renewed, in 1818, at Aix-la-Chapelle – the scope of the Grand Alliance was extended to objects of common interest not specifically stated in the treaties. The article runs: "In order to consolidate the intimate tie which unites the four sovereigns for the happiness of the world, the High Contracting Powers have agreed to renew at fixed intervals, either under their own auspices or by their respective ministers, meetings consecrated to great common objects and to the examination of such measures as at each one of these epochs shall be judged most salutary for the peace and prosperity of the nations and the maintenance of the tranquility of Europe".[22]

It was this article of the treaty of the 20 November 1815, rather than the Holy Alliance, that formed the basis of the serious effort made by the great powers, between 1815 and 1822, to govern Europe in concert. In general it proved that an alliance, to be effective, must be clearly defined as to its objects, and that in the long run the treaty in which these objects are defined must – to quote Otto von Bismarck's somewhat cynical dictum – "be reinforced by the interests" of the parties concerned.[22] Yet the "moral alliance" of Europe, as Count Karl Nesselrode called it,[22] though it failed to secure the permanent harmony of the powers, was an effective instrument for peace during the years immediately following the downfall of Napoleon; and it set the precedent for those periodical meetings of the representatives of the powers, for the discussion and settlement of questions of international importance, which, though cumbrous and inefficient for constructive work, contributed much to the preservation of the general peace during much of the nineteenth century.[22]

See also edit

Notes edit

  1. ^ a b Kuo, Raymond (2019). "Secrecy among Friends: Covert Military Alliances and Portfolio Consistency". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 64: 63–89. doi:10.1177/0022002719849676. ISSN 0022-0027. S2CID 182507234.
  2. ^ a b c Frieden, Jeffry A. (2018). World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions (4 ed.). W W NORTON. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-393-67510-8. OCLC 1197968459.
  3. ^ Leeds, Brett Ashley (2003). "Do Alliances Deter Aggression? The Influence of Military Alliances on the Initiation of Militarized Interstate Disputes". American Journal of Political Science. 47 (3): 427–439. doi:10.2307/3186107. ISSN 0092-5853. JSTOR 3186107. from the original on 2022-09-23. Retrieved 2021-06-22.
  4. ^ Tucker, Robert; Hendrickson, David C. (1992). The Imperial Temptation: The New World Order and America's Purpose. Council on Foreign Relations. pp. 64–65.
  5. ^ Weitsman, Patricia A. (2004). Dangerous Alliances: Proponents of Peace, Weapons of War. Stanford University Press. pp. 18–19. ISBN 978-0-8047-4866-7. from the original on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2023-10-30.
  6. ^ Byman, Daniel (October 2006). (PDF). The Journal of Strategic Studies. 29 (5): 767–811. doi:10.1080/01402390600900887. S2CID 14316259. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-04-05.
  7. ^ According to Sagan 2004, p. 91 n.4, Waltz's book remains "the seminal text of neorealism".
  8. ^ Powell, Robert (1994). "Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate". International Organization. 48 (2): 313. doi:10.1017/s0020818300028204. S2CID 45773252. from the original on 24 December 2022.
  9. ^ Krebs, Ronald R. (1999). "Perverse Institutionalism: NATO and the Greco-Turkish Conflict". International Organization. 53 (2): 343–377. doi:10.1162/002081899550904. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2601392. S2CID 37524225. from the original on 2022-09-23. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  10. ^ Blankenship, Brian D. (2023). The Burden-Sharing Dilemma: Coercive Diplomacy in US Alliance Politics. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1-5017-7247-4. JSTOR 10.7591/jj.130890.
  11. ^ Olson, Mancur; Zeckhauser, Richard (1966). "An Economic Theory of Alliances". The Review of Economics and Statistics. 48 (3): 266–279. doi:10.2307/1927082. ISSN 0034-6535. JSTOR 1927082. from the original on 2023-03-15. Retrieved 2021-08-02.
  12. ^ Blankenship, Brian (2022). "The Price of Protection: Explaining Success and Failure of US Alliance Burden-Sharing Pressure". Security Studies. 30 (5): 691–724. doi:10.1080/09636412.2021.2018624. ISSN 0963-6412. S2CID 245600314. from the original on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  13. ^ Benson, Brett V.; Meirowitz, Adam; Ramsay, Kristopher W. (2014). "Inducing Deterrence through Moral Hazard in Alliance Contracts". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 58 (2): 307–335. doi:10.1177/0022002712467936. ISSN 0022-0027. S2CID 54823122. from the original on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2021-12-12.
  14. ^ Benson, Brett V. (2012). Constructing International Security: Alliances, Deterrence, and Moral Hazard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139225694. ISBN 978-1-107-02724-4. from the original on 2023-03-29. Retrieved 2021-12-12.
  15. ^ Benson, Brett V. (2011). "Unpacking Alliances: Deterrent and Compellent Alliances and Their Relationship with Conflict, 1816–2000". The Journal of Politics. 73 (4): 1111–1127. doi:10.1017/s0022381611000867. ISSN 0022-3816.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g Snyder, Glenn H. (1984). "The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics". World Politics. 36 (4): 461–495. doi:10.2307/2010183. ISSN 0043-8871. JSTOR 2010183. S2CID 154759602. from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2022-02-01.
  17. ^ Henry, Iain D. (2020). "What Allies Want: Reconsidering Loyalty, Reliability, and Alliance Interdependence". International Security. 44 (4): 45–83. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00375. hdl:1885/206720. ISSN 0162-2889. S2CID 215747296.
  18. ^ Lanoszka, Alexander (2018). "Tangled up in rose? Theories of alliance entrapment and the 2008 Russo-Georgian War". Contemporary Security Policy. 39 (2): 234–257. doi:10.1080/13523260.2017.1392102. ISSN 1352-3260. S2CID 158217866. from the original on 2023-11-07. Retrieved 2022-02-01.
  19. ^ Kim, Tongfi (2011). "Why Alliances Entangle But Seldom Entrap States". Security Studies. 20 (3): 350–377. doi:10.1080/09636412.2011.599201. hdl:10072/41644. ISSN 0963-6412. S2CID 144808663. from the original on 2023-07-19. Retrieved 2023-07-19.
  20. ^ Brooks, Stephen G.; Ikenberry, G. John; Wohlforth, William C. (2012). "Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment". International Security. 37 (3): 7–51. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00107. ISSN 0162-2889. JSTOR 41804173. S2CID 57564135. from the original on 2023-07-19. Retrieved 2023-07-19.
  21. ^ Henry, Iain D. (2022). Reliability and Alliance Interdependence: The United States and Its Allies in Asia, 1949–1969. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1-5017-6305-2. from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2022-04-29.
  22. ^ a b c d e f Phillips 1911, p. 695.

References edit

Further reading edit

April 12, 2024
military, alliance, military, alliance, formal, agreement, between, nations, that, specifies, mutual, obligations, regarding, national, security, event, nation, attacked, members, alliance, often, obligated, come, their, defense, regardless, attacked, directly. A military alliance is a formal agreement between nations that specifies mutual obligations regarding national security In the event a nation is attacked members of the alliance are often obligated to come to their defense regardless if attacked directly Military alliances can be classified into defense pacts non aggression pacts and ententes Alliances may be covert as was common from 1870 to 1916 or public 1 European military alliances prior to World War I Triple Entente Triple AllianceTwo military alliances The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Warsaw Pact in Europe during the Cold WarAccording to a 2002 dataset of military alliances there have been 538 alliance treaties from 1815 to 2003 2 The vast majority of the alliances involve commitments to come to the military support of one ally involved in war 2 The vast majority are defensive in nature 2 Since the end of the Second World War military alliances have usually behaved less aggressively and act more as a deterrent 3 Contents 1 Characteristics 2 European historiography 3 See also 4 Notes 5 References 6 Further readingCharacteristics editMilitary alliances are related to collective security systems but can differ in nature An early 1950s memorandum from the United States Department of State explained the difference by noting that historically alliances were designed to advance the respective nationalistic interests of the parties and provided for joint military action if one of the parties in pursuit of such objectives became involved in war A collective security arrangement is directed against no one it is directed solely against aggression It seeks not to influence any shifting balance of power but to strengthen the balance of principle 4 The obvious motivation in states engaging in military alliances is to protect themselves against threats from other countries However states have also entered into alliances to improve ties with a particular nation or to manage conflict with a particular nation 5 The nature of alliances including their formation and cohesiveness or lack thereof is a subject of much academic study past and present Influential works include those by Glenn Snyder Stephen Walt 6 and Kenneth Waltz Kenneth Waltz outlined in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics a neorealist theory of international politics where he argued that balances of power tend to form in world politics 7 Alongside neoliberalism neorealism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to the study of military alliances in international relations the two perspectives dominated international relations theory from the 1960s to the 1990s 8 Neorealism emerged from the North American discipline of political science and reformulates the understanding of military alliances in the classical realist tradition of E H Carr Hans Morgenthau George Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr Neorealism is subdivided into defensive and offensive neorealism During peace time according to a 2019 study almost all alliances from 1870 to 1916 may have been covert or implied In other time periods covert alliances have been rare The study argues that from 1870 to 1916 the unusual amount of covert alliances was incentivized by other covert alliances The creation of public alliances would signal to the covert ally that the public alliance was more valuable 1 According to Ronald Krebs pre WWII alliances were generally relatively simple short lived affairs 9 Common problems for alliances revolve around free riding and burden sharing 10 Members of an alliance have incentives not to contribute to the alliance while simultaneously benefiting on the public goods provided by the alliance According to Mancur Olson and Richard Zeckhauser s classic study of alliances small states frequently free ride on the large state s contributions to an alliance 11 Small allies that are militarily vulnerable are less likely to free ride whereas strategically important small allies are most likely to free ride 12 Alliances may also lead to moral hazard whereby allies behave more aggressively and recklessly if they believe that the alliance will aid them in any conflict 13 14 On the whole alliances do deter aggression on net 15 Within alliances actors may fear entrapment or abandonment 16 17 18 Entrapment means that allies get dragged into a conflict over one ally s interests that the other allies do not share 16 Scholars have disputed the prevalence of entrapment 19 with Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth writing it is nearly impossible to find a clear case of entrapment actually occurring 20 Abandonment means that allies do not come to the rescue of a fellow ally 16 Strong commitments to an alliance can reduce the bargaining power of that ally vis a vis the other allies 16 However an ally whose commitment to the alliance is in doubt has greater bargaining leverage 16 Weak alliance commitments can make it easier for the ally to realign the alliance if a fellow ally is considered unsatisfactory 16 Strong alliance commitments may strengthen the adversary s alliance as the adversary may face a greater threat 16 The failure of a strong ally to come to the rescue of a weaker ally abandonment may jeopardize the strong ally s other alliances However it may also strengthen the other alliances as the other allies may sometimes prefer that the strong ally abandons a weak ally if it is likely to raise the risks of military escalation for the other allies 21 European historiography editIn the European historical context a military alliance can be viewed as a league between independent states defined by treaty for the purpose of combined action defensive or offensive or both The oldest such alliance in the world today is the Anglo Portuguese Alliance dating back to 1373 where the then Kingdoms of England and Portugal pledged to perpetual friendship between the two countries This remains in action today between the current United Kingdom and Portugal and the two have never fought against each other in any military campaign Alliances have often been directed to specific objects carefully defined in the treaties Thus the Triple Alliance of 1668 between Great Britain Sweden and the Netherlands and the Grand Alliance of 1689 between the Holy Roman Empire Holland England Spain and Saxony were both directed against the power of Louis XIV of France The Quadruple or Grand Alliance of 1814 defined in the Treaty of Chaumont between Great Britain Austria Russia and Prussia had for its object the overthrow of Napoleon and his dynasty and the confining of France within her traditional boundaries The Triple Alliance of 1882 between Germany Austria and Italy was ostensibly directed to the preservation of European peace against any possible aggressive action of France or Russia and this led in turn some ten years later to the Dual Alliance between Russia and France for mutual support in case of any hostile action of the other powers 22 Occasionally however attempts have been made to give alliances a more general character Thus the Holy Alliance of 26 September 1815 was an attempt inspired by the religious idealism of the Emperor Alexander I of Russia to find in the sacred precepts of the Gospel 22 a common basis for a general league of the European governments its object being primarily the preservation of peace So too by Article VI of the Quadruple Treaty signed at Paris on 20 November 1815 which renewed that of Chaumont and was again renewed in 1818 at Aix la Chapelle the scope of the Grand Alliance was extended to objects of common interest not specifically stated in the treaties The article runs In order to consolidate the intimate tie which unites the four sovereigns for the happiness of the world the High Contracting Powers have agreed to renew at fixed intervals either under their own auspices or by their respective ministers meetings consecrated to great common objects and to the examination of such measures as at each one of these epochs shall be judged most salutary for the peace and prosperity of the nations and the maintenance of the tranquility of Europe 22 It was this article of the treaty of the 20 November 1815 rather than the Holy Alliance that formed the basis of the serious effort made by the great powers between 1815 and 1822 to govern Europe in concert In general it proved that an alliance to be effective must be clearly defined as to its objects and that in the long run the treaty in which these objects are defined must to quote Otto von Bismarck s somewhat cynical dictum be reinforced by the interests of the parties concerned 22 Yet the moral alliance of Europe as Count Karl Nesselrode called it 22 though it failed to secure the permanent harmony of the powers was an effective instrument for peace during the years immediately following the downfall of Napoleon and it set the precedent for those periodical meetings of the representatives of the powers for the discussion and settlement of questions of international importance which though cumbrous and inefficient for constructive work contributed much to the preservation of the general peace during much of the nineteenth century 22 See also edit nbsp Politics portalList of military alliances Multinational forceNotes edit a b Kuo Raymond 2019 Secrecy among Friends Covert Military Alliances and Portfolio Consistency Journal of Conflict Resolution 64 63 89 doi 10 1177 0022002719849676 ISSN 0022 0027 S2CID 182507234 a b c Frieden Jeffry A 2018 World Politics Interests Interactions Institutions 4 ed W W NORTON p 190 ISBN 978 0 393 67510 8 OCLC 1197968459 Leeds Brett Ashley 2003 Do Alliances Deter Aggression The Influence of Military Alliances on the Initiation of Militarized Interstate Disputes American Journal of Political Science 47 3 427 439 doi 10 2307 3186107 ISSN 0092 5853 JSTOR 3186107 Archived from the original on 2022 09 23 Retrieved 2021 06 22 Tucker Robert Hendrickson David C 1992 The Imperial Temptation The New World Order and America s Purpose Council on Foreign Relations pp 64 65 Weitsman Patricia A 2004 Dangerous Alliances Proponents of Peace Weapons of War Stanford University Press pp 18 19 ISBN 978 0 8047 4866 7 Archived from the original on 2023 11 07 Retrieved 2023 10 30 Byman Daniel October 2006 Remaking Alliances for the War on Terrorism PDF The Journal of Strategic Studies 29 5 767 811 doi 10 1080 01402390600900887 S2CID 14316259 Archived from the original PDF on 2016 03 04 Retrieved 2015 04 05 According to Sagan 2004 p 91 n 4 harvnb error no target CITEREFSagan2004 help Waltz s book remains the seminal text of neorealism Powell Robert 1994 Anarchy in International Relations Theory The Neorealist Neoliberal Debate International Organization 48 2 313 doi 10 1017 s0020818300028204 S2CID 45773252 Archived from the original on 24 December 2022 Krebs Ronald R 1999 Perverse Institutionalism NATO and the Greco Turkish Conflict International Organization 53 2 343 377 doi 10 1162 002081899550904 ISSN 0020 8183 JSTOR 2601392 S2CID 37524225 Archived from the original on 2022 09 23 Retrieved 2021 12 05 Blankenship Brian D 2023 The Burden Sharing Dilemma Coercive Diplomacy in US Alliance Politics Cornell University Press ISBN 978 1 5017 7247 4 JSTOR 10 7591 jj 130890 Olson Mancur Zeckhauser Richard 1966 An Economic Theory of Alliances The Review of Economics and Statistics 48 3 266 279 doi 10 2307 1927082 ISSN 0034 6535 JSTOR 1927082 Archived from the original on 2023 03 15 Retrieved 2021 08 02 Blankenship Brian 2022 The Price of Protection Explaining Success and Failure of US Alliance Burden Sharing Pressure Security Studies 30 5 691 724 doi 10 1080 09636412 2021 2018624 ISSN 0963 6412 S2CID 245600314 Archived from the original on 2023 11 07 Retrieved 2021 12 31 Benson Brett V Meirowitz Adam Ramsay Kristopher W 2014 Inducing Deterrence through Moral Hazard in Alliance Contracts Journal of Conflict Resolution 58 2 307 335 doi 10 1177 0022002712467936 ISSN 0022 0027 S2CID 54823122 Archived from the original on 2023 11 07 Retrieved 2021 12 12 Benson Brett V 2012 Constructing International Security Alliances Deterrence and Moral Hazard Cambridge Cambridge University Press doi 10 1017 cbo9781139225694 ISBN 978 1 107 02724 4 Archived from the original on 2023 03 29 Retrieved 2021 12 12 Benson Brett V 2011 Unpacking Alliances Deterrent and Compellent Alliances and Their Relationship with Conflict 1816 2000 The Journal of Politics 73 4 1111 1127 doi 10 1017 s0022381611000867 ISSN 0022 3816 a b c d e f g Snyder Glenn H 1984 The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics World Politics 36 4 461 495 doi 10 2307 2010183 ISSN 0043 8871 JSTOR 2010183 S2CID 154759602 Archived from the original on 2023 03 26 Retrieved 2022 02 01 Henry Iain D 2020 What Allies Want Reconsidering Loyalty Reliability and Alliance Interdependence International Security 44 4 45 83 doi 10 1162 isec a 00375 hdl 1885 206720 ISSN 0162 2889 S2CID 215747296 Lanoszka Alexander 2018 Tangled up in rose Theories of alliance entrapment and the 2008 Russo Georgian War Contemporary Security Policy 39 2 234 257 doi 10 1080 13523260 2017 1392102 ISSN 1352 3260 S2CID 158217866 Archived from the original on 2023 11 07 Retrieved 2022 02 01 Kim Tongfi 2011 Why Alliances Entangle But Seldom Entrap States Security Studies 20 3 350 377 doi 10 1080 09636412 2011 599201 hdl 10072 41644 ISSN 0963 6412 S2CID 144808663 Archived from the original on 2023 07 19 Retrieved 2023 07 19 Brooks Stephen G Ikenberry G John Wohlforth William C 2012 Don t Come Home America The Case against Retrenchment International Security 37 3 7 51 doi 10 1162 ISEC a 00107 ISSN 0162 2889 JSTOR 41804173 S2CID 57564135 Archived from the original on 2023 07 19 Retrieved 2023 07 19 Henry Iain D 2022 Reliability and Alliance Interdependence The United States and Its Allies in Asia 1949 1969 Cornell University Press ISBN 978 1 5017 6305 2 Archived from the original on 2023 03 26 Retrieved 2022 04 29 a b c d e f Phillips 1911 p 695 References edit nbsp This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain Phillips Walter Alison 1911 Alliance law In Chisholm Hugh ed Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol 1 11th ed Cambridge University Press p 695 Further reading editElias Barbara 2020 Why Allies Rebel Defiant Local Partners in Counterinsurgency Wars Cambridge University Press Kinne Brandon J 2020 The Defense Cooperation Agreement Dataset DCAD Journal of Conflict Resolution 64 4 729 755 Liska George 1968 Alliances and the Third World Baltimore Johns Hopkins Press Pressman Jeremy 2008 Warring Friends Alliance Restraint in International Politics Ithaca Cornell University Press Snyder Glenn H 1997 Alliance Politics Ithaca SCornell University Press Walt Stephen 1987 The Origins of Alliances Ithaca Cornell University Press ISBN 9780801420542 Weitsman Patricia A 2004 Dangerous Alliances Proponents of Peace Weapons of War Palo Alto Stanford University Press Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Military alliance amp oldid 1215053060, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.