Appendix A: Quotes for Assumptions

Appendix A: Quotes For Assumptions

Assumption 1:

Vincent, Jack E. 1996. “The Relative Importance of Power, Economic Development, and Political System During the Middle of the Cold War.” Martin Journal of Peace and Conflict Research, University of Idaho. No. 2: 1-13. Internet citation: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/martin_archives/peace_journal/vincent.html

Quote (p.5): “From the above it may be concluded that power is more important than economic development and economic development is more important than political system across all three time periods. Thus the views of the realists appear more supported, during the middle of the cold war, over those of economic explanations or the views of idealism applied to political system. Power base, using Distance Theory, emerges as almost twice as important as the other two factors combined. Economic development comes in second but only slightly outscores political system.”

Assumption 2:

Tillema, Herbert K. 1989. “Foreign Overt Military Intervention in the Nuclear Age.” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 26. No. 2 (May): 179-195.

Quote (p. 186): “Most great powers, including China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, have each intervened more frequently than nearly all other states, consistent with the view of power politics theory. The Soviet Union is a less frequent intervenor than are the other great powers; but she, too, is more active than most.”

Assumption 3:

Van Belle, Douglas A. 1997. “Press Freedom and the Democratic Peace.” Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 34. No. 4 (November): 405-414.

Quote (p. 405-406): “Dixon’s (1994) analysis of regime type and conflict resolution demonstrates that democracies engaged in a dispute are more likely to turn to non-violent forms of resolution such as arbitration, thus suggesting that the cultural, shared norms explanation has merit.”

Assumption 4:

Cerven, James, Matthew Hedberg, Joshua Lilly, Brooke Loesby, and Jack E. Vincent. “Attributes, Behaviors, and Conflict: A Statistical Analysis of the Use of Force.” Borah Research Papers, University of Idaho. No. 2: 1-10. Internet citation: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/martin_archives/Cerven.html

Quote (p. 8): As predicted, cooperation and conflict appear highly linked and both are related to force usage. That is, states that exhibit a high degree of cooperative behavior may also tend to engage in conflictual behavior and tend to use force. Conflict and cooperation appear to be part and parcel with one another. It is instructive to view these two seemingly disparate characteristics as possible part of a circle of behavior.”