Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

For more information, click here

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Political Research Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Corbetta, R.
Right arrow Articles by Dixon, W. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Multilateralism, Major Powers, and Militarized Disputes

Renato Corbetta

Grand Valley State University

William J. Dixon

University of Arizona

American foreign policy has been animated by public debate between multilateralism and unilateralism in recent years. Some strains of traditional realist thinking suggest that major powers like the U.S. will naturally tend to be less enamored of multilateral action precisely because they possess the capabilities to engage a wider range of unilateral options and they face fewer structural limitations than other states. We empirically investigate this intriguing potential connection between major power status and multilateralism through the lens of interstate conflict. Using Keohane’s (1990) definition of multilateralism as coordination among three or more states, we analyze states’ propensity to participate multilaterally in militarized disputes. Contrary to expectations, we find that major powers are substantially more prone toward multilateral participation than other states. These results p rove to be highly robust in the face of a number of potentially confounding factors and over time.

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 1, 5-14 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/106591290405700101


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
INT RELAT ASIA PACHome page
A. Tago
Why do states join US-led military coalitions?: The compulsion of the coalition's missions and legitimacy
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, May 1, 2007; 7(2): 179 - 202.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Conflict Management and Peace ScienceHome page
R. Corbetta and W. J. Dixon
Danger Beyond Dyads: Third-Party Participants in Militarized Interstate Disputes
Conflict Management and Peace Science, February 1, 2005; 22(1): 39 - 61.
[Abstract] [PDF]