The term of Indo Pacific delineates a conceptual evolution in the US strategic community to contain and encircle China by countering it in the area of its influence. The underlined policy priority is to counter Belt and Road Initiative to contain China. While China’s strict adherence to the previous geographical connotation of Asia Pacific establishes that it sticks to its policy of leading world by economic interdependence approach in Asia. This great power competition in the Indo Pacific region has wide ranging strategic and economic implications for Pakistan. This paper aims to discern into the factors which are making the strategic environment tensed thinning out the options for Pakistan. The two basic questions which this study addresses are: a. How does conceptual shift from Asia Pacific to Indo Pacific transform the strategic environment of this region? b. Why is this transformation so significant for Pakistan’s geostrategic interests?
{"title":"Great Power Rivalry in Indo Pacific: Implications for Pakistan","authors":"Zainab Ahmed","doi":"10.53532/ss.041.04.0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53532/ss.041.04.0037","url":null,"abstract":"The term of Indo Pacific delineates a conceptual evolution in the US strategic community to contain and encircle China by countering it in the area of its influence. The underlined policy priority is to counter Belt and Road Initiative to contain China. While China’s strict adherence to the previous geographical connotation of Asia Pacific establishes that it sticks to its policy of leading world by economic interdependence approach in Asia. This great power competition in the Indo Pacific region has wide ranging strategic and economic implications for Pakistan. This paper aims to discern into the factors which are making the strategic environment tensed thinning out the options for Pakistan. The two basic questions which this study addresses are: a. How does conceptual shift from Asia Pacific to Indo Pacific transform the strategic environment of this region? b. Why is this transformation so significant for Pakistan’s geostrategic interests?","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78804401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The American geopolitical analysts perceive the steady rise of China as a strategic competitor and challenger to the United States’ sole superpower stature in the twenty-first century. The vibrance of the United States (US) economy is on the wane as the Belt and Road Initiative of China is heralded as a vision of shared prosperity. Therefore, Trump administration adopted a hostile-cum-containment foreign policy posture towards China. The main fear of the administration was that China could transform the prevalent global geopolitical order to its advantage. Therefore, the administration constructed and publicised the anti-China narrative internally and externally which seems detrimental to Pakistan’s geoeconomic pursuits through CPEC. Besides, Washington’s reservation over the CPEC undermines Pakistan-US strategic cooperation. The study systematically analyses how the US ruling elite, academia and media constructs, shapes, and rebuilds anti-China and CPEC narratives to pursue their geopolitical objectives during the Trump administration.
{"title":"Trump Administration’s Strategic Perspective about CPEC","authors":"Zhao Leibin and Zafar Nawaz Jaspal","doi":"10.53532/ss.041.04.0039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53532/ss.041.04.0039","url":null,"abstract":"The American geopolitical analysts perceive the steady rise of China as a strategic competitor and challenger to the United States’ sole superpower stature in the twenty-first century. The vibrance of the United States (US) economy is on the wane as the Belt and Road Initiative of China is heralded as a vision of shared prosperity. Therefore, Trump administration adopted a hostile-cum-containment foreign policy posture towards China. The main fear of the administration was that China could transform the prevalent global geopolitical order to its advantage. Therefore, the administration constructed and publicised the anti-China narrative internally and externally which seems detrimental to Pakistan’s geoeconomic pursuits through CPEC. Besides, Washington’s reservation over the CPEC undermines Pakistan-US strategic cooperation. The study systematically analyses how the US ruling elite, academia and media constructs, shapes, and rebuilds anti-China and CPEC narratives to pursue their geopolitical objectives during the Trump administration.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"236 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73628289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-22DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2021.1984896
J. Levy, William Mulligan
ABSTRACT Empirical research generally supports the dyadic-level trade-promotes-peace hypothesis, while demonstrating that the relationship is weaker, more complex, and more conditional than liberal theory suggests. We shift to the system level and examine a neglected path to conflict in economically interdependent systems. In the great power competition for support among smaller states, a great power at a competitive disadvantage in economic instruments of influence may be incentivised to adopt more militarised strategies. We illustrate our argument with case studies of Austro-Hungarian and Russian influence strategies before the First World War and of Prussian strategies among German states before the Franco-Prussian War.
{"title":"Systemic effects of economic interdependence and the militarisation of diplomacy: 1914 and beyond","authors":"J. Levy, William Mulligan","doi":"10.1080/01402390.2021.1984896","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.1984896","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Empirical research generally supports the dyadic-level trade-promotes-peace hypothesis, while demonstrating that the relationship is weaker, more complex, and more conditional than liberal theory suggests. We shift to the system level and examine a neglected path to conflict in economically interdependent systems. In the great power competition for support among smaller states, a great power at a competitive disadvantage in economic instruments of influence may be incentivised to adopt more militarised strategies. We illustrate our argument with case studies of Austro-Hungarian and Russian influence strategies before the First World War and of Prussian strategies among German states before the Franco-Prussian War.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":"894 - 920"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82441498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-20DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2022.2039634
Hallvard Notaker
ABSTRACT Situational awareness in the face of hybrid campaigns is undermined by ‘blind spots’, which this article conceptualises. Blind spots are where legal or political frameworks preclude intelligence gathering below the threshold of war. Drawing on a historical case study of alterations in legislation and security police directives in Norway from 1950–2021, the analysis shows how an influence operation’s blind spot varied along with shifts in the balance between national security concerns and democratic individual rights. Recent initiatives to criminalise domestic collaboration with foreign influence operators are discussed, and the advent of AI and microtargeting presented as a challenge out of reach of such legislation.
{"title":"In the blind spot: Influence operations and sub-threshold situational awareness in Norway","authors":"Hallvard Notaker","doi":"10.1080/01402390.2022.2039634","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2022.2039634","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Situational awareness in the face of hybrid campaigns is undermined by ‘blind spots’, which this article conceptualises. Blind spots are where legal or political frameworks preclude intelligence gathering below the threshold of war. Drawing on a historical case study of alterations in legislation and security police directives in Norway from 1950–2021, the analysis shows how an influence operation’s blind spot varied along with shifts in the balance between national security concerns and democratic individual rights. Recent initiatives to criminalise domestic collaboration with foreign influence operators are discussed, and the advent of AI and microtargeting presented as a challenge out of reach of such legislation.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"707 1","pages":"595 - 623"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74761766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-02DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2021.2011233
Rosella Cappella Zielinski, Ryan Grauer
ABSTRACT Under what conditions do battlefield coalitions fight as greater or less than the sum of their parts? Introducing the Belligerents in Battle dataset, which contains information on actors fighting in 492 battles during interstate wars waged between 1900 and 2003, we present, for the first time, a portrait of the universe of battlefield coalitions. Battlefield coalitions win more often and suffer fewer casualties than belligerents fighting alone. Battlefield coalitions including forces fielded by the United States, states with pre-existing treaty agreements, and democracies are particularly powerful. By contrast, battlefield coalitions that include non-state actors lose the majority of their fights.
{"title":"A century of coalitions in battle: Incidence, composition, and performance, 1900-2003","authors":"Rosella Cappella Zielinski, Ryan Grauer","doi":"10.1080/01402390.2021.2011233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.2011233","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Under what conditions do battlefield coalitions fight as greater or less than the sum of their parts? Introducing the Belligerents in Battle dataset, which contains information on actors fighting in 492 battles during interstate wars waged between 1900 and 2003, we present, for the first time, a portrait of the universe of battlefield coalitions. Battlefield coalitions win more often and suffer fewer casualties than belligerents fighting alone. Battlefield coalitions including forces fielded by the United States, states with pre-existing treaty agreements, and democracies are particularly powerful. By contrast, battlefield coalitions that include non-state actors lose the majority of their fights.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"106 1","pages":"186 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80737492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2022.2030717
T. Bottelier
ABSTRACT The Second World War was the first conflict fought in three dimensions, across the full spectrum of violence. Yet compared to the land and the air, the sea has surely received the least attention. It has been the subject of fewer books and articles, fewer films and television series and fewer monuments and commemorations than either of the other dimensions. Both historiography and remembrance are terrestrial in orientation. The books reviewed here each contribute to correcting the army-dominated and terrestrial, if not necessarily the Eurocentric view of the Second World War.
{"title":"The maritime perspective: Placing the oceans in the study of the Second World War","authors":"T. Bottelier","doi":"10.1080/01402390.2022.2030717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2022.2030717","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Second World War was the first conflict fought in three dimensions, across the full spectrum of violence. Yet compared to the land and the air, the sea has surely received the least attention. It has been the subject of fewer books and articles, fewer films and television series and fewer monuments and commemorations than either of the other dimensions. Both historiography and remembrance are terrestrial in orientation. The books reviewed here each contribute to correcting the army-dominated and terrestrial, if not necessarily the Eurocentric view of the Second World War.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"16 1","pages":"451 - 468"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89949196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2022.2030716
Sara Bjerg Moller
ABSTRACT When and why do coalitions adapt in wartime? Drawing on insights from organizational research and bargaining theories of war, this paper develops a model of coalitional military adaptation. I argue that coalition members are slow to adjust their wartime fighting arrangements owing to collective action problems as well as the military and political practicalities inherent in coalition warfare. I illustrate my argument with a case study of the Austro-German coalition in World War I.
{"title":"Learning from losing: How defeat shapes coalition dynamics in wartime","authors":"Sara Bjerg Moller","doi":"10.1080/01402390.2022.2030716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2022.2030716","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT When and why do coalitions adapt in wartime? Drawing on insights from organizational research and bargaining theories of war, this paper develops a model of coalitional military adaptation. I argue that coalition members are slow to adjust their wartime fighting arrangements owing to collective action problems as well as the military and political practicalities inherent in coalition warfare. I illustrate my argument with a case study of the Austro-German coalition in World War I.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"104 1","pages":"280 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77416953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-28DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2021.2011231
Rosella Cappella Zielinski, Ryan Grauer
ABSTRACT Battlefield coalitions are distinct warfighting collectives. They are the groups of forces created by states that are formal allies, states that have no written agreement to cooperate militarily, non-state actors, or some combination thereof to engage in combat at the operational and tactical levels of war. They are also increasingly common belligerents in war, but there is little scholarship on their creation, composition, operation, and achievements. This special issue begins the necessary work of improving our understanding of battlefield coalitions, providing new insight into their nature and capabilities, as well as the military and political consequences of their combat operations.
{"title":"Understanding battlefield coalitions","authors":"Rosella Cappella Zielinski, Ryan Grauer","doi":"10.1080/01402390.2021.2011231","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.2011231","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Battlefield coalitions are distinct warfighting collectives. They are the groups of forces created by states that are formal allies, states that have no written agreement to cooperate militarily, non-state actors, or some combination thereof to engage in combat at the operational and tactical levels of war. They are also increasingly common belligerents in war, but there is little scholarship on their creation, composition, operation, and achievements. This special issue begins the necessary work of improving our understanding of battlefield coalitions, providing new insight into their nature and capabilities, as well as the military and political consequences of their combat operations.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"3 1","pages":"177 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84966342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-28DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2021.2002692
Dan Reiter
ABSTRACT Conventional thinking frames battlefield coalitions as collections of national armies fighting together as multinational coalitions. However, wars also include rebel groups fighting together as coalitions, and rebel groups fighting alongside states in hybrid coalitions. This paper seeks to better understand rebel and hybrid battlefield coalitions, focusing on command and operational military effectiveness. The paper first presents basic ideas about coalition command and military effectiveness from conventional wisdom on multinational coalitions. It then builds on these ideas to explore potential similarities and differences between multinational coalitions on one hand and rebel and hybrid coalitions on the other. In particular, the paper focuses on the nature of different command structures, the varying operational military effectiveness advantages for unified coalition command, and the political motivations for coalition members to resist creating unified command, despite potential effectiveness benefits. The paper concludes by providing policy recommendations to states who lead hybrid coalitions.
{"title":"Command and military effectiveness in rebel and hybrid battlefield coalitions","authors":"Dan Reiter","doi":"10.1080/01402390.2021.2002692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.2002692","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Conventional thinking frames battlefield coalitions as collections of national armies fighting together as multinational coalitions. However, wars also include rebel groups fighting together as coalitions, and rebel groups fighting alongside states in hybrid coalitions. This paper seeks to better understand rebel and hybrid battlefield coalitions, focusing on command and operational military effectiveness. The paper first presents basic ideas about coalition command and military effectiveness from conventional wisdom on multinational coalitions. It then builds on these ideas to explore potential similarities and differences between multinational coalitions on one hand and rebel and hybrid coalitions on the other. In particular, the paper focuses on the nature of different command structures, the varying operational military effectiveness advantages for unified coalition command, and the political motivations for coalition members to resist creating unified command, despite potential effectiveness benefits. The paper concludes by providing policy recommendations to states who lead hybrid coalitions.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"60 1","pages":"211 - 233"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84631507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-13DOI: 10.1080/01402390.2021.2011232
Eric Min
ABSTRACT When and why do countries in a wartime coalition engage in diplomacy during hostilities? This paper establishes a theoretical framework of coalitional diplomacy that highlights each member’s private costs and benefits to fighting or seeking a negotiated exit. I argue that the propensity for coalition members to engage in negotiations is a function of the coalition’s balance of military contributions, as well as the coalition’s battlefield successes and failures. Evidence supporting these claims stem from a large-scale quantitative analysis of two centuries of interstate wars, as well as a close study of the Allies in the Crimean War.
{"title":"Speaking with one voice: Coalitions and wartime diplomacy","authors":"Eric Min","doi":"10.1080/01402390.2021.2011232","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2021.2011232","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT When and why do countries in a wartime coalition engage in diplomacy during hostilities? This paper establishes a theoretical framework of coalitional diplomacy that highlights each member’s private costs and benefits to fighting or seeking a negotiated exit. I argue that the propensity for coalition members to engage in negotiations is a function of the coalition’s balance of military contributions, as well as the coalition’s battlefield successes and failures. Evidence supporting these claims stem from a large-scale quantitative analysis of two centuries of interstate wars, as well as a close study of the Allies in the Crimean War.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":"65 1","pages":"303 - 327"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73716251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：