代理人战争:多极世界的多用途工具

Q2 Arts and Humanities Journal of Slavic Military Studies Pub Date : 2023-05-02 DOI:10.2478/jms-2023-0001
Amos C. Fox
{"title":"代理人战争:多极世界的多用途工具","authors":"Amos C. Fox","doi":"10.2478/jms-2023-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Current literature on proxy war tends to miss a set of key factors germane to the study and practice of proxy war. First, proxy wars are distinct from coalitions and alliances because proxy wars, unlike the latter, are rooted in offsetting one’s own risk by offloading it to another actor. Next, analysing proxy relationships and risk through agency theory, network theory, and theories of power illuminate five basic models of proxy relationship – coerced, exploited, transactional, cultural and contractual. These models provide a new understanding of how strategic actors can best leverage a proxy. Moreover, these models provide a basic understanding of what specific types of proxies cannot do. For example, coerced and exploited proxies cannot be counted on for complicated work, or long-duration operations. Transactional proxies, given the business agreement between the principal and proxy, can be counted on to go to the razor’s edge together. Nonetheless, task completion accelerates dyad divergence, and mission accomplishment usually results in transactional solvency. Cultural and contractual relationships are tight-bonded, facilitate complicated missions, and can operate for long periods of time. As a result, strategic actors looking to invest in proxy strategies are best served when utilising cultural or contractual proxies.","PeriodicalId":35160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Slavic Military Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On proxy war: A multipurpose tool for a multipolar world\",\"authors\":\"Amos C. Fox\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/jms-2023-0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Current literature on proxy war tends to miss a set of key factors germane to the study and practice of proxy war. First, proxy wars are distinct from coalitions and alliances because proxy wars, unlike the latter, are rooted in offsetting one’s own risk by offloading it to another actor. Next, analysing proxy relationships and risk through agency theory, network theory, and theories of power illuminate five basic models of proxy relationship – coerced, exploited, transactional, cultural and contractual. These models provide a new understanding of how strategic actors can best leverage a proxy. Moreover, these models provide a basic understanding of what specific types of proxies cannot do. For example, coerced and exploited proxies cannot be counted on for complicated work, or long-duration operations. Transactional proxies, given the business agreement between the principal and proxy, can be counted on to go to the razor’s edge together. Nonetheless, task completion accelerates dyad divergence, and mission accomplishment usually results in transactional solvency. Cultural and contractual relationships are tight-bonded, facilitate complicated missions, and can operate for long periods of time. As a result, strategic actors looking to invest in proxy strategies are best served when utilising cultural or contractual proxies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Slavic Military Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Slavic Military Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2023-0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Slavic Military Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2023-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要当前关于代理战争的文献往往忽略了一系列与代理战争研究和实践密切相关的关键因素。首先,代理战争不同于联盟和联盟,因为代理战争与后者不同,其根源在于通过将自己的风险转嫁给另一个参与者来抵消自己的风险。其次,通过代理理论、网络理论和权力理论对代理关系和风险进行分析,阐明了代理关系的五种基本模型——强迫型、剥削型、交易型、文化型和契约型。这些模型为战略参与者如何最好地利用代理提供了新的理解。此外,这些模型提供了对特定类型的代理不能做什么的基本理解。例如,不能指望强迫和利用代理来完成复杂的工作或长时间的操作。考虑到委托人和代理人之间的业务协议,事务性代理可以指望一起走到刀锋边缘。然而,任务完成会加速二元分化,而任务完成通常会导致交易偿付能力。文化和契约关系是紧密结合的,有利于复杂的任务,并且可以长期运作。因此,寻求投资于代理策略的战略行为体在利用文化或合同代理时得到了最好的服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On proxy war: A multipurpose tool for a multipolar world
Abstract Current literature on proxy war tends to miss a set of key factors germane to the study and practice of proxy war. First, proxy wars are distinct from coalitions and alliances because proxy wars, unlike the latter, are rooted in offsetting one’s own risk by offloading it to another actor. Next, analysing proxy relationships and risk through agency theory, network theory, and theories of power illuminate five basic models of proxy relationship – coerced, exploited, transactional, cultural and contractual. These models provide a new understanding of how strategic actors can best leverage a proxy. Moreover, these models provide a basic understanding of what specific types of proxies cannot do. For example, coerced and exploited proxies cannot be counted on for complicated work, or long-duration operations. Transactional proxies, given the business agreement between the principal and proxy, can be counted on to go to the razor’s edge together. Nonetheless, task completion accelerates dyad divergence, and mission accomplishment usually results in transactional solvency. Cultural and contractual relationships are tight-bonded, facilitate complicated missions, and can operate for long periods of time. As a result, strategic actors looking to invest in proxy strategies are best served when utilising cultural or contractual proxies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Slavic Military Studies
Journal of Slavic Military Studies Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Autonomous weapon systems and IHL compliance: A constrained legal optimisation problem Detecting deceit within a predominantly true statement using two parallel assessment methods: A pilot study Long-term post traumatic growth after moral- and victim-traumas among Norwegian UN military peacekeepers: the impact of emotional distress and leadership Butcher’s Bills: Engagement-level preponderance and casualties in the French Revolution Wars and Napoleonic Wars, 1792–1815 Examining the roots of turnover intentions in the Royal Norwegian Navy, the role of embeddedness, work-life conflict and predictability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1