Explaining the US behavioral pattern in international crises management

Document Type : Science - Research (International Relation)

Authors
Mohammad Abedi 1
Nozar Shafiee 2
Mohammad reza Dehshiri 3
1 Ph.D. in International Relation. Islamic Azad University.
2 Faculty member of Isfahan University.Isfahan.
3 Faculty member of School of International Relations of Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
10.30497/pk.2021.239398.2743
Abstract
The United States, while a political unit, like other actors, is a country with a wide range of global interests. Accordingly, the active and effective presence of the country in international affairs is explained and interpreted. Understanding United States foreign policy in international crises management(ICM) and being aware of possible America reactions is of particular importance to foreign policymakers. During an international crisis, the United States is a major player in the crisis, or acts in the light of United Nation intervention. So the main question of the article is what is the pattern of United States behavioral logic in ICM? With the aim of achieving the management model of the United States in international crises, the ICB Project dataset, inspired by the idea of applied history, were extracted and statistically analyzed. In order to answer the main question of the article using exploratory research method, the findings of the article, which is in fact a hundred-year model of United States behavior in international crises, showed threat of influence, grave damages, limited military damage, and political threat has been most prevalent threats in the "America as Crisis Actor" crises. Non-violence has also been the dominant American technique in crises based on the threat of influence. Also the usual United States response to the threat of grave damage has been serious clashes or full-scale war. The United States has also been inactive in any of the crises the Security Council has dealt with, but the dominant approach has been low-level activity. According to the results, the article concludes that threats such as cultural, economic, or political have no potential to create an international crisis for the United States. The prevailing American response to the perception of the threat of grave damage will also be serious clashes or full-scale war. The main activity of the United States in crises in which it acting as Interfering actor, is low-level activity or inactivity.
Keywords
Keywords: Act of Violence
Applied History
Gravity of Threat
International Crisis
United Nations
United States
Subjects
برچر، مایکل (1394). بحران در سیاست جهان؛ ظهور و سقوط بحران‌ها(میرفردین قریشی، مترجم). تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
برچر، مایکل و ویلکنفلد، جاناتان (1382). بحران، تعارض و بی‌ثباتی (علی صبحدل، مترجم). تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
حاجی محمدی، علی و منتظرقائم، مهدی(1394). «رسانه­ها و بحران­های بین­المللی و منطقه­ای؛ تحلیل انتقادی پیش فرض مقاله­های خبری مطبوعات ترکیه درباره بحران سوریه»، نشریه علمی دانش سیاسی. 1(21)، 145-177.
دهشیار، حسین و حیدری، مهدیه (1397). «مدیریت بحران: ادراک تهدید و اعمال خشونت»، فصلنامه پژوهش‌های روابط بین‌الملل. 1(27)، 183-161.
دهشیری، محمدرضا و گلستان، مسلم (1395). «الگوی رفتاری قدرت­های بزرگ در مدیریت بحران­های بین­المللی در نظام­های تک ـ چندقطبی»، پژوهشنامه علوم سیاسی. 11 (3). 124-79.
واعظی، محمود (1394). بحران‌های بین‌المللی؛ تحلیل نظری و مطالعه موردی. تهران: دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین‌المللی.
 
Allison, Graham and Ferguson, Niall (2016). "Applied History Manifesto". Available in: https://www.belfercenter.org/project/applied-history-project#!manifesto
Auer, Claudia (2016). Conceptualizing Political Crisis and the Role of Public Diplomacy in Crisis Communication Research. in: Schwarz, Andreas; Seeger, Matthew W.; Auer, Claudia (eds). The Handbook of International Crisis Communication Research. UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Ben-Yehuda, Hemda (2004), "Territoriality and War in International Crises: Theory and Findings",1918–2001 International Studies Review. 6 (4), 85-106.
Brecher, Michael (1993). crises in world politics; theory and reality. new york: pergamon press
Brecher, Michael (2018).  A Century of Crisis and Conflict in the International System ; Theory and Evidence: Intellectual Odyss. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brecher, Michael and Wilkenfeld, Jonathan (1989). Crisis, Conflict and Instability (Crises in the Twentieth Century). UK: Pergamon Press.
Brecher, Michael; Jonathan Wilkenfeld; Kyle Beardsley; Patrick James and David Quinn (2020). International Crisis Behavior Data Codebook. Version 13.
Erica, Resende; Dovilė, Budrytė; Didem, Buhari-Gulmez (2018). Crisis and Change in Post-Cold War Global Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Foot, Rosemary; MacFarlane, S.Neil and Mastanduno, Michael (eds) (2003). US Hegemony and International Organizations; The United States and Multilateral Institutions. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Hast, Susanna (2014). Spheres of Influence in International Relations; History, Theory and Politics. USA: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Holsti, Ole R.; Brody, Richard H. and North, Robert C. (1964). "Measuring Affect and Action in International Reaction Models: Empirical Materials From the 1962 Cuban Crisis". Journal of Peace Research. 1 (3-4), 170-190
Holsti, Ole R.; North, Robert C. and Brody, Richard H. (1968), Perception and Action in the 1914 Crisis. in: Singer, David (ed.). Quantitative International Politics. New York: Free Press, pp: 123-158.
ICB Project (2016). International Crisis Behavior (ICB) Project. ICB Data Viewr. version 13.
James, Patrick (2018). "What do we know about crisis, escalation and war? A visual assessment of the International Crisis Behavior Project", Conflict Management and Peace Science. 36 (1), 3-19.
James, Patrick and Lakhnis, Evgeniia (2019). "Near crises in world politics: A new dataset", Conflict Management and Peace Science. 36 (4), 1-20.
Lazarus, Richard S. and Folkman, Susan (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer Publishing Company.
Leng, Russell J. (1993). Interstate crisis behavior, 1816-1980: realism vs. reciprocity. Cambridge University Press.
Per, Lægreid and Lise H. Rykkja (2019). Societal Security and Crisis Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Podliska, Bradley F. (2010). Acting alone : a scientific study of American hegemony and unilateral use-of-force decision making. New york: LEXINGTON BOOKS.
Snyder, Glenn Herald and Diesing, Paul (2015). Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton University Press.
Stares, Paul B. (2019). Preparing for the Next Foreign Policy Crisis; What the United States Should Do. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Boston (U.S): Addison-Wesley publishing company.
Yoshihara, Susan (2010). Waging war to make peace: U.S. intervention in global conflicts. USA: ABC-CLIO.
Zinnes, Dina; North, Robert and Koch, Howard (1961). Capability, Threat, and Outbreak of war. in: Rosenau, James: International Politics and Foreign Policy, New York: Free Press, pp:469-482.
Journal of Political Knowledge
Volume 17, Issue 1 - Serial Number 33
ESSAY
March 2021
Pages 215-242

  • Receive Date 10 September 2020
  • Revise Date 25 December 2020
  • Accept Date 25 December 2020