Multiple Paths to Knowledge PDF

CHAPTER 1 Multiple Paths to Knowledge international crisis Behavior (icB) Project: overview Origins The past 4 decades have been a period of intense research concentration on international crises, that is, international political earthquakes, and interstate con icts. From the outset it was apparent...

CHAPTER 1 Multiple Paths to Knowledge international crisis Behavior (icB) Project: overview Origins The past 4 decades have been a period of intense research concentration on international crises, that is, international political earthquakes, and interstate con icts. From the outset it was apparent that the ICB project would become an ambitious, demanding, and rewarding exploration, in depth and breadth, of a large segment of the IR eld: it encompassed the study of interstate military-security crises and protracted con icts on a scale that, as the project unfolded, seemed awesome: time—the twen- tieth century since the end of World War I, November 1918, into the rst 15 years of the twenty- rst century (ICB dataset, Version 12); geo- graphic scope—all states in the global system during that near-century; and content—from the eruption of crises, their escalation, de-escalation through attempts at successful crisis management, to the outcome and consequences of all international and foreign policy crises for all states. That project is now 42 years old but is still ourishing, measured by the number of scholars and students engaged in ICB research and the ow of publications, books, and articles. The origins of this project were closely linked to earlier periods and topics of my research. After more than two decades on a select number of crises and con icts in two volatile regions—from the India/Pakistan con ict over Kashmir (1947) © The Author(s) 2018 1 M. Brecher, A Century of Crisis and Con ict in the International System, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57156-0_1 2 M. BRECHER to the Arab/Israel October-Yom Kippur crisis-war (1973–1974)—the time seemed ripe to launch an inquiry into crises, con icts, and wars in the world at large over an extended period of time. The result was my initiation of the ICB project in 1975. Its aims were ambitious. One was to generate comprehensive datasets on foreign policy and international crises in the twentieth century, for none existed at the time, unlike the closely related phenomenon of war. The other was to frame and test a uni ed model of international crisis and crisis behavior. Both proved to be demanding tasks on a vast scale. fl fi fi fi fl fl fi fl fl fl fi fl fl The few persons consulted, in 1974–1975, before taking the plunge, were skeptical, particularly of the ambitious scope of the project, which, they cautioned, could take decades; it did, with the end not yet in sight. Perhaps they were right; they certainly proved to be correct about the time frame. Their views were considered, with great care; but in the end, declined, and the saga began. (The evolution of this project, its publications, and major ndings thus far, will be presented later in this book.) Colleagues, Coders and Advisers Since 1977, Jonathan Wilkenfeld has been my closest ICB colleague during what has become a very long-term research phase. Jonathan and I differ in many respects: educational background (McGill-Yale and Maryland-Indiana); research skills and methodological dispositions (qualitative, case study and quantitative, aggregate data analysis); an age difference, 17 years; physical distance—we lived on two continents and in three countries, Canada/Israel and the U.S. during virtually the entire history of the ICB Project, and most of it was before the coming of e-mail, and temperament. We learned a great deal from each other, with mutual respect. This cooperative endeavor facilitated a multi-method study of crises and con icts in world politics. Our close collaboration—and our friendship—continues undiminished and unimpaired after 40 years! In the early 1980s, we were joined by Patrick James, a very talented former Ph. D student of Jon Wilkenfeld, who has made major contribu- tions to the concepts, models, and methods of the ICB project and has become a high-pro le, accomplished IR scholar, serving as President of the International Studies Association (ISA) and Peace Science Society in 2018–2019. The ICB project also bene ted from a vibrant and stimulating group of colleagues and graduate students in three universities in three states—McGill, University of Maryland, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It also had the good fortune of attracting many eager and committed research assistants in the seemingly endless task of creating reliable datasets of international crises, foreign policy crises, and pro- tracted con icts: for the initial, longest research period, 1929–1979— it took more than a decade, 1975–1987—Hemda Ben Yehuda, Gerald Bichunski, Diana Brecher, Ofra Einav, Robert Einav, Alex Forma, Etel Goldmann/Solingen, Sharon Greenblatt, Rutie Moser, Hanan Naveh, Arie Ofri, Lily Polliak, Mordechai Raz, Michel Reichman, André Rosenthal, Joel Schleicher, Bruce Slawitsky, and Sarah Vertzberger (in Jerusalem); and Mark Boyer, Doreen Duffy, Steve Hill, Patrick James, Cindy Kite, Maureen Latimer, Eileen Long (in Maryland); for the period, 1980–1985, Joel Schleicher (in Jerusalem), Brigid Starkey and Alice Schott (in Maryland); for the periods, 1918–1928 and 1985–1994, Tod Hoffman, Eric Laferriere, Michelle Lebrun, Mark Peranson, and Michael Vasko (at McGill); and Ronit Lupu, Iris Margulies, Meirav Mishali, Noam Shultz, and Sarah Vertzberger (in Jerusalem), and, from 1995– 2015, Kyle Beardsley, David M. Quinn, and Pelin Erlap (at Maryland). fi fi fl fl fi fi Many scholars gave generously of their time and knowledge as regional specialists, with many bene ts to the ICB project: Douglas Anglin, Naomi Hazan, and Saadia Touval (on Africa); Alexander de Barros, Thomas Bruneau, Nelson Kas r, Jorge Dominguez, and Edy Kaufman (on the Americas); Ehud Harari, Ellis Joffe, Paul Kattenburg, Guy Pauker, Leo Rose, Martin Rudner, Yaakov Vertzberger, and George T.C. Yu (on Asia); Luigi Bonanate, Karen Dawisha, Galia Golan, Kjell Goldmann, Amnon Sella, and Robert Vogel (on Europe); and Richard H. Dekmejian, Alan Dowty, Benjamin Geist, Jacob Landau, and Yaakov Shimoni (on the Middle East). Rationale and Methods Like other scholars immersed in IR research, the senior ICB scholars have a longstanding policy interest, that is, a wish and hope that our ndings on crisis, con ict, and war, especially on how decision-makers behave under (often escalating) stress, might make a contribution in the quest for a more tranquil world, through advice on con ict resolution and even on war prevention. We had no illusions that the contribution would be decisive. But we did—and do—place a high value on trying to ‘bridge the gap’ between academe and the decision-makers’ world. 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 3 4 M. BRECHER The ICB approach to the systematic study of crisis, con ict, and war derived from a deep commitment to pluralism in the quest for knowl- edge, that is, to complementary, not competing methodologies: this com- mitment to pluralism is not con ned to the issue of qualitative vs. quantitative methods. It includes recognition of the merit of both deductive and inductive approaches to theory-building. And it extends to a focus on both large N and small N datasets: ICB has produced—and utilized—both types in its multifaceted inquiry. ICB began with a single-state foreign policy crisis decision-making model and a set of research questions. This model and the questions were designed to direct case studies of decision-making using a com- mon framework and therefore to facilitate generalizations about behavior under the stress of crisis. A series of in-depth studies of individual interstate crises was launched—and nine volumes have been published since 1979; these volumes are set out below. Within 2 years (1977) and with Jonathan Wilkenfeld’s invaluable input, ICB moved to a second, parallel track, namely, studies in breadth of a large number of crises to complement the in-depth case studies. Each of these paths posed different questions. One dataset was appropriate to the system or interactor (macro) level of analysis, the other to the unit or actor (micro) level of analysis. One cluster of questions was designed to generate comparable data on the four phases of an international crisis— onset, escalation, de-escalation, and impact. The data were used to test hypotheses on the conditions most likely to lead to the eruption of a crisis, its escalation to peak hostility, often with violence at the eruption and/or escalation stage(s), the ‘winding down’ process leading to termi- nation, and its consequences. The second cluster focused on the behavior of decision-makers at different levels of stress in the pre-crisis, crisis, end- crisis, and postcrisis periods of a state’s foreign policy crisis. fl fl fi fl fi fi fl During the past 42 years, we pursued both paths simultaneously, viewing them as complementary, not competitive sources of ndings on international and foreign policy crises and on interstate protracted con- icts. Path I, 29 qualitative case studies, ranges from Ethiopia’s decisions in the 1935–1936 Ethiopia/Italy crisis and war and the U.K. decisions in the Munich Crisis of 1938 to Iraq and U.S. decisions in the Gulf Crisis and War of 1990–1991 and the North Korea (DPRK) and U.S. deci- sions during several crises in the North Korean Nuclear protracted con ict since 1993 (‘vertical’ research). Path II has taken the form of quantitative aggregate data analysis of 476 international crises and 1052 foreign policy crises since the end of World War I (‘horizontal’ research). Objectives ICB research on international crises before, during, and after the Cold War focused on ve objectives. One was to develop the concept of inter- national crisis as an international political earthquake and to present a comparison of such earthquakes since the end of World War I: along many attributes such as trigger, triggering entity, duration, number of decisions, decision-makers, their attitudinal prism, and values; and along many dimensions such as geography-region, time, system structure, con ict setting, bloc alignment, peace–war setting, violence, military power, economic devel- opment, and political regime. A second, closely related aim was to create and apply concepts, indica- tors, indexes, and scales designed to measure the severity (intensity) and impact (consequences) of international crises viewed as international polit- ical earthquakes. These are based on the premise that such precise meas- urement is scienti cally possible. A third goal was to bring closure to the persistent debate on which international structure is the most—and the least—stable, that is, the least—and the most—disruptive of the global international system— bipolarity, multipolarity, bipolycentrism, and unipolarity [or unipolycen- trism]. The rationale for this debate and research question is that international stability is—or should be—a high value for all states and nations/peoples in an epoch characterized by weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the persistence of anarchy despite the proliferation of interna- tional and transnational regimes, the increase of ethnic and civil wars, and the growing preoccupation with worldwide terrorism. All these sources of turmoil enhance the normative value of stability. Thus illuminating the polarity–stability nexus has important long-term implications for foreign policy and national security decision-makers and the attentive publics of all states. A fourth objective has been to extend and deepen our knowledge of coping/crisis management by in-depth case studies, focusing on how decision-makers coped with the peak stress crisis period during diverse political earthquakes (crises) in each structural era of the past near- century: multipolarity (mid-November 1918 [end of World War I]– early September 1945 [end of WWII]), bipolarity (early September 1945–end 1962 [termination of the Cuban Missile crisis]), bipolycentrism 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 5 6 M. BRECHER fi fl fi fl (beginning 1963–end 1989 [end of the Cold War]), and unipolycentrism (beginning 1990– ongoing). The nal aim has been to provide a novel test of the validity of neo- Realism. The discovery of no or minor differences in the patterns of crisis and crisis behavior during the four structural eras would indicate strong support for the neo-Realist contention that structure shapes world poli- tics, as well as the foreign policy-security behavior of states, its principal actors. However, the presence of substantive differences in the patterns of crisis and crisis behavior during the four structural eras since the end of WW I would seriously undermine the claim of neo-Realism to be the optimal paradigm for world politics throughout history and in the dec- ades ahead. Taken together, the general objective of the ICB inquiry since 1975 has been to enrich and deepen our knowledge of interna- tional crisis and interstate con ict in the twentieth century and beyond. Formative Publications (19771980) The late 1970s was also a period of several ICB-related publications which became guides to the Project’s research program, especially its theoretical framework and its indepth case studies: two Brecher jour- nal articles, “Toward a Theory of International Crisis Behavior,” in the International Studies Quarterly (1977) and “State Behavior in International Crisis: A Model,” in the Journal of Con ict Resolution (1979). The following year, the rst ICB in-depth case study volume was published, Brecher with Geist, Decisions in Crisis: Israel, 1967 and 1973. This book, as noted, served as the conceptual and methodological model for the seven other ICB case study volumes (analyzing 15 crises) that were published from 1980 to 1994, as well as for the 14 unpublished graduate student case studies of foreign policy crises. Case StudiesQualitative Analysis All ICB case studies applied the foreign policy crisis model, initially pre- sented as journal articles in 1977 and 1979, as noted above. The ICB case study volumes are as follows: *Brecher with Benjamin Geist, Decisions in Crisis: Israel 1967 and 1973 (1980). Dawisha, Adeed I., Syria and the Lebanese Crisis (1980). *Shlaim, Avi, The United States and the Berlin Blockade, 1948–1949 (1983). *Dawisha, Karen, The Kremlin and the Prague Spring (1984). *Dowty, Alan, Middle East Crisis: U.S. Decision-Making in 1958, 1970, and 1973 (1984). *Jukes, Geoffrey, Hitler’s Stalingrad Decisions (1985). *Hoffmann, Stephen: India and the China Crisis (1990), and fl fl fi fi Anglin, Douglas G., Zambian Crisis Behavior: Confronting Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence, 1965–1966 (1994). The case study volumes and the unpublished crisis studies gener- ated comparable ndings which provided a valuable database for test- ing hypotheses on state behavior in crises. The published ICB books and other in-depth case studies analyzed 15 foreign policy crises of indi- vidual states. Fourteen other crises have been researched by my gradu- ate students. These 29 crises served as the empirical basis for Part B (“Qualitative Analysis”) in Brecher, International Political Earthquakes (2008); the ndings from that inquiry are presented later in this book. Datasets and Aggregate Analysis A dozen years, 1975–1987, were devoted to data gathering (coding) and analysis of crises and con icts from 1929 to 1979, the initial time frame of the ICB Project: it was a collective research enterprise whose success owed much to the devoted coding of our research assistants, under the direc- tion of Brecher and Wilkenfeld. Given the complexity of the Project, it took 2 years to complete the process of publication. In 1988, the rst two volumes of a three-volume work, Crises in the Twentieth Century, were published as Handbook of International Crises (Brecher and Wilkenfeld) and Handbook of Foreign Policy Crises (Wilkenfeld and Brecher). The next year, the third volume containing analytic papers on this dataset appeared as Crisis, Con ict and Instability (Brecher and Wilkenfeld). Almost a decade later (1997), a substantially revised and signi cantly enlarged aggregate dataset and analysis segment of the project appeared, A Study of Crisis (Brecher and Wilkenfeld). It presented the updated dataset at both the system-level and actor-level of analysis and an array of 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 7 8 M. BRECHER ndings on crisis, con ict, and war from late 1918 to the end of 1994. [Important ndings from that book are presented later in this book.] Millennial re ections on crisis and con ict fi fi fi fi fl fl fl fl In 1999–2000, as President of the International Studies Association, I confronted the task of conceiving and organizing the theme panels for the annual conference. In meeting this challenge I had the invaluable collaboration of my talented Program Chair for ISA 2000, Frank Harvey, a McGill Ph. D (1993) and, at the time, Professor of Political Science at fl fi fi [*These six books were published from 1980 to 1990 by the University of California Press in a series, Studies in Crisis Behavior, edited by Brecher.] Dalhousie University and Director of its Center for Foreign Policy Studies. The imminent millennial change seemed an auspicious time to re ect on the state of International Studies (IS). To accomplish this task, a large number of prominent contribu- tors to IS were invited to prepare papers for the envisaged eight clus- ters of panels on the main theme of the conference in 2000—Millennial Re ections on International Studies. The panelists represented all branches of International Studies and included scholars from many universities in Australia, Canada, Europe, Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Advocates and Critics The rst cluster comprised six papers by proponents, critics, and a revi- sionist of Realism, the dominant paradigm in International Relations during the state-centric Westphalia era, 1648–1990: John J. Mearsheimer(University of Chicago). Joseph M. Grieco (Duke University and Catholic University of Milan). John A. Vasquez (Vanderbilt University, later, University of Illinois). Kalevi J. Holsti (University of British Columbia). Manus I. Midlarsky (Rutgers University). Patrick James (University of Missouri, later, University of Southern California). The second cluster of re ections on IR paradigms comprised four papers on Institutionalism: David A. Lake(University of California, San Diego). Robert O. Keohane (Duke University, later, Princeton University). 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 9 Joseph S, Nye Jr. (Harvard University). Oran Young (Dartmouth College). A diverse group of Alternative and Critical perspectives on International Studies was represented in the third cluster: Steve Smith(University of Wales, later, Essex University) [Overview] Robert W. Cox (York University, Toronto) [Critical Theory] Michael Cox (Editor, Review of International Studies, later, University fl fl fl fi of Wales) [Radical Theory] Ernst B. Haas (University of California, Berkeley) and Peter M. Haas (University of Massachusetts at Amherst) [Constructivism] Yosef Lapid (New Mexico State University) [Post-Modernism] R.B.J. Walker (Keele University, later, University of Victoria) [PostModernism] James N. Rosenau (George Washington University) [System Change] There were six papers on Feminist and Gender perspectives on International Studies: L.H.M. Ling(Institute of Social Studies, The Hague). V. Spike Peterson (University of Arizona). Jan Jindy Pettman (Australian National University). Christine Sylvester (Institute of Social Studies, The Hague). J. Ann Tickner (University of Southern California). Marysia Zalewski (Queen’s University of Belfast). Re ections on Methodology in International Studies comprised nine papers: Four were on Formal Modeling: Michael Nicholson (Sussex University). Harvey Starr (University of South Carolina). Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (Hoover Institution/Stanford and New York University). Steven J. Brams (New York University). Three papers focused on Quantitative Methods: Dina A. Zinnes (University of Illinois). James Lee Ray (Vanderbilt University). 10 M. BRECHER Russell J. Leng (Middlebury College). Two papers discussed Qualitative (Case Study) Methods: Jack S. Levy (Rutgers University). Zeev Maoz (Tel Aviv University, later, University of California, Davis). The cluster of millennial re ections on Foreign Policy Analysis com- prised papers by four authors: Yaacov Y. I. Vertzberger(Hebrew University of Jerusalem). Stephen G. Walker (Arizona State University). Ole R. Holsti (Duke University). Jonathan Wilkenfeld (University of Maryland). fl fi fl There were ve papers onInternational Security, Peace, and War: Edward A. Kolodziej (University of Illinois). Davis B. Bobrow (University of Pittsburgh). J. David Singer (University of Michigan). Three papers focused on International Political Economy: Helen Milner (Columbia University, later, Princeton University). Robert T. Kudrle (University of Minnesota). Lisa L. Martin (Harvard University). (The participants are listed above in the sequence with which their papers appeared in Brecher and Harvey (Eds.), Millennial Re ections on International Studies, 2002.) Although some esteemed colleagues were unable to accept the invita- tion, the group of 44 participants was a veritable ‘blue ribbon commis- sion’ of the International Studies eld; it included 13 former presidents of the International Studies Association (ISA). Rationale The essence of the Millennial Re ections Project is evident in the Introductory Statement by the editors of the volume that contained all the Re ections papers. 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 11 “When one of the editors was introduced to International Relations (IR)/World Politics at Yale in 1946 the eld comprised international poli- tics, international law and organization, international economics, interna- tional (diplomatic) history, and a regional specialization. The hegemonic paradigm was Realism, as expressed in the work of E.H. Carr, W.T.R. Fox, Hans J. Morgenthau, Nicholas Spykman, Arnold Wolfers and others. The unquestioned focus of attention was interstate war and peace.” “By the time the other editor was initiated into International Relations at McGill in the mid-late 1980s the pre-eminent paradigm was neo-Realism. However, there were several competing claimants to the ‘true path’: institutional theory, cognitive psychology, and postmodern- ism; and by the time he received his doctoral degree, other competitors had emerged, notably, critical theory, constructivism, and feminism.” “The consequence, at the dawn of the new millennium, was a vigor- ous, stillinconclusive debate about the optimal path to knowledge about International Studies (IS), most clearly expressed in competing views: that it is a discipline—International Relations {IR} or World Politics—like eco- nomics, political science, sociology, anthropology, history; or that it is a multidisciplinary eld of study, the ‘big tent’ conception held by the pre- mier academic organization, the International Studies Association (ISA). It was in this context that the Millennial Re ections Project was conceived.” fl fl fi fl fl The origin and rationale of the conference idea may be found in the central theme of my presidential address to the ISA conference in Washington in February 1999: “International Studies in the Twentieth Century and Beyond: Flawed Dichotomies, Synthesis, Cumulation” (International Studies Quarterly, 1999). Whether a discipline or a multidisciplinary ‘big tent’ mélange, International Studies has developed over the last halfcentury with diverse philosophical underpinnings, frameworks of analysis, fi fi Linda B. Miller (Wellesley College). methodologies, and foci of attention. This diver- sity is evident in the papers that were presented at the panels at the Los Angeles conference and revised for this state-of-the-art collection of essays at the dawn of the new millennium. Diversity in International Studies In an attempt to capture the range, diversity, and complexity of International Studies, we decided to organize the 44 ‘think-piece’ essays into eight clusters. The mainstream paradigms of Realism and Institutionalism constitute the rst two concentrations. The others were 12 M. BRECHER Critical perspectives (including Critical Theory, Post-Modernism, Constructivism, and Feminism and Gender perspectives); Methodology (including quantitative, formal modeling, and qualitative [case studies]); Foreign Policy analysis; International Security, Peace, and War; and International Political Economy. The raison d’etre of the Millennial Re ections Project was set out in the Theme Statement of the conference, titled “Re ection, Integration, and Cumulation: International Studies, Past and Future.” First, new debates, perspectives the number and size of sub elds and sections have grown steadily since the founding of the International Studies Association in 1959. This diversity, while enriching, has made increas- ingly dif cult the crucial task of identifying intra-sub eld, let alone inter- sub eld, consensus about important theoretical and empirical insights. Aside from focusing on a cluster of shared research questions related, for example, to globalization, gender and international relations, critical theory, political economy, international institutions, global development, democracy and peace, foreign and security policy, and so on, there are still few clear signs of cumulation. If, we declared, the maturity of an academic discipline is based not only on its capacity to expand but also on its capacity to select, the lack of agreement within these research communities is particularly disquiet- ing. Realists, for instance, cannot fully agree on their paradigm’s core assumptions, central postulates, or the lessons learned from empiri- cal research. Similarly, Feminist epistemologies encompass an array of research programs and ndings that are not easily grouped into a com- mon set of beliefs, theories, or conclusions. If those who share common interests and perspectives have dif culty agreeing on what they have accomplished to date or do not concern themselves with the question of what has been achieved so far, how can they establish clear targets to facilitate creative dialogue across these diverse perspectives and sub elds? fi fi fi fi fi fi fl fl fi fl fi fi With this in mind, the objective was to challenge proponents of spe- ci c paradigms, theories, approaches, and substantive issue-areas to con- front their own limitations by engaging in self-critical re ection within epistemologies and perspectives. The objective was to stimulate debates about successes and failures but to do so by avoiding the tendency to de ne accomplishments with reference to the failures and weaknesses of other perspectives. It is important to note that our call to assess the ‘state of the art’ in International Studies was not meant as a reaf rmation of the standard 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 13 proposition that a rigorous process of theoretical cumulation is both pos- sible and necessary. Not all perspectives and sub elds of IS are directed to cumulation in this sense. Some participants found the use of such words as synthesis and progress suspect, declaring in their original papers that they could not address, or were not prepared to address, these social science-type questions. We nevertheless encouraged these individuals to de ne what they considered to be fair measures of success and failure in regard to their sub eld, and we asked them to assess the extent to which core objectives (whatever they may be) have or have not been met, and why. Our intention was not to tie individuals to a particular set of meth- odological tenets, standards, assumptions, or constraints. We simply wanted to encourage self-re ective discussion and debate about signi - cant achievements and failures. Even where critiques of mainstream the- ory and methodology are part of a sub eld’s raison d’etre, the lack of consensus is still apparent and relevant. As a community of scholars, we are rarely challenged to address the larger question of success and progress (however one chooses to de ne these terms), perhaps because there is so little agreement on the methods and standards we should use to identify and integrate important observa- tions, arguments, and ndings. To prevent intellectual diversity descending into intellectual anarchy, we set out ‘guidelines’ for the contributors in the form of six theme questions or tasks. The panelists were requested to address one or more of these themes in their essays. fl fi fi fi fi fl Explore ways to achieve fruitful synthesis of approaches, both in terms of core research questions and appropriate methodologies. fi 4. fi Evaluate the intra-sub eld standards we should use to assess the signi cance of theoretical insights. fi 3. fi Assess where we stand on unresolved debates and why we have failed to resolve them. fi 2. fi Engage in self-critical, state-of-the-art re ection on accomplish- ments and failures, especially since the creation of the ISA more than 40 years ago. fi 1. 5. Address the broader question of progress in international studies. 6. Select an agenda of topics and research questions that should guide your sub eld during the coming decades. 14 M. BRECHER The result was an array of thought-provoking ‘think pieces’ that indicate shortcomings as well as achievements and specify the un nished business of IS as a scholarly eld in the next decade or more, with wide-ranging policy implications in the shared quest for world order. Assessment of the Field The essence of each paper in the eight clusters was summarized in the introductory chapter of the Brecher-Harvey edited book. At the end of the volume, the editors presented ndings on the six theme questions about International Studies: paradigms, methodologies, and the three broad substantive research areas namely foreign policy analysis; interna- tional security, peace, and war; and international political economy. They concluded with ve general observations about progress, more accu- rately the lack of progress, in International Studies. “First, new debates, perspectives, theories, and approaches are prolif- erating much faster than old debates are being resolved—indeed, few if any of the ‘old’ debates have ever been resolved. To the extent that con- sensus exists at all, it usually emerges in the context of narrowly-de ned research programs encompassing small communities of scholars who focus on less signi cant issues.” “Second, if we haven’t yet achieved closure on key theoretical and methodological debates, we never will; a symposium in 1972 arrived at the same conclusion.” “Third, for those who remain convinced that constructive dialogue and consensus is still possible, our most discouraging observation is that there are no solutions.” “Fourth, self-critical re ection does not come easily to most scholars. Finally, in response to the advice of one of the elders in the eld, James Rosenau, ‘we need to acknowledge our own limitations and alert those we train to the necessity of breaking with past assumptions and nding new ways of understanding and probing the enormous chal- lenges....,’ we declared that these assertions beg crucial questions. What precisely do we tell our graduate students to keep or discard. What is the ‘real world’ and how should it be studied? The debate continues.” (681–684) fi fi fi fi fl fi fi fi fi fi Millennial Reections on International Studies (2002) [Eds. Brecher and Frank P. Harvey] 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 15 intellectual odyssey: Phases, theMes, concePts Phases The rst of my three long-term research Phases (1950–1969) focused on the politics, international relations, and modern history of South Asia, mostly India. The second Phase (1960–1980) concentrated on articulated percep- tions of the Arab/ Israel Con ict by political leaders, of cials and intellectuals from Egypt and Israel, and their behavior in a complex protracted con ict. The third, on-going Phase, which began in 1975, has been devoted to the quest for theory, aggregate data, and case studies of international crises and protracted con icts. The three phases, as noted early in this book, were linked intellectu- ally but the areas of study and the duration of each phase were not neatly pre-arranged. They emerged in response to changing stimuli and varying concerns over time about sources of turmoil in the global system. This conception of research phases provided a framework for an assessment of (a) political leaders, notably those who profoundly shaped the politi- cal evolution of newly independent states in two regions, South Asia and the Middle East, speci cally, India and Israel, since their Independence; (b) the Arab/Israel Con ict; and (c) the theory and practice of inter- state crises and protracted con icts in the nearcentury since the end of World War I. Themes Political Leadership and Charisma (Odyssey I) This theme explored a selection of the literature on political leader- ship and some notable political leaders in Canada, the U.K., India, and Israel from 1944 to 1978: Trudeau (Canada); Attlee and Mountbatten (the U.K.); Nehru and Krishna Menon, along with many less visible but highly in uential Indian politicians in those years, including Lal Bahadur Shastri and Morarji Desai, two other prime ministers in the post-Nehru era (India); and Ben-Gurion, Sharett, Eshkol, and Meir, the rst four prime ministers of Israel, along with the prominent second-generation gures, Allon, Dayan, Eban, and Peres. This theme and the ndings 16 M. BRECHER were the focus of attention in the rst of three books that, together, traversed my intellectual odyssey since 1950: Political Leadership and Charisma: Nehru, Ben Gurion, and Other Twentieth-Century Political Leaders (2016). fl fl fl fi fi fl fi fl fi fi fl fi fi Arab/Israel Conict (Odyssey II) The second theme centered on perceptions of a complex unresolved con- ict by eight prominent political leaders of Israel during the rst three decades of independence (1948– 1977) and by Egyptian of cials and intellectuals during the decade of Sadat’s presidency in the 1970s, before his epochal visit to Jerusalem in 1977 and the Egypt–Israel peace agree- ment in 1979. There were also explorations of crucial decisions by Israel, with profound consequences: to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel in December 1949; to accept German reparations in 1952; to launch a pre- emptive strike against Egypt in October 1956 and against Egypt and Syria in June 1967; not to launch an interceptive war in October 1973, and the Egypt–Israel peace process, 1977–1979, culminating in a formal peace agreement in 1979. The ndings from many years of research on this indepth con ict were presented in my Dynamics of the Arab/Israel Con ict (2017). Interstate Crises and Conicts (Odyssey III) This theme focuses on international and foreign policy crises—their onset phase/precrisis period, escalation phase/crisis period, de-escalation phase/ end-crisis period, and impact phase/post-crisis period, for all independent states in the global system since the end of World War I, along with 33 interstate protracted con icts—by states, major powers and international institutions, from late 1918 to 2017. This phase includes the major ndings from in-depth case studies of decisions, decision-makers, and the decision process by principal adversaries in 29 foreign policy crises and 11 protracted con icts from all polarity structures, geographic regions, types of political régime, levels of power, and levels of economic devel- opment.’ 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 17 Concepts The quest for theory, insights, and ndings on the three main themes was guided by ten concepts in the eld of International Relations– World Politics–International Studies (IR–WP–IS). fl fl fl Together, they are objectively acknowledged by other state actors and international organizations as constituting a distinctive community, region, or segment of the global system. fl 3. fi It comprises at least three state actors, fi 2. fi Its scope is delimited, with primary emphasis on a geographic region. fi 1. fi fl fi Concept 1 Subordinate State System, an intermediate level of analysis between the dominant subsystem (interactions among the major pow- ers of the global system) and a state. A subordinate system requires six conditions: 4 The members of the subsystem identify themselves as such. 5. The level of power among subsystem members is relatively inferior to that of states in the dominant system, using a sliding scale of power in both. 6. Changes in the dominant system have greater effects on the subordinate system than the reverse. This concept of a subordinate state system grew out of extensive research on South Asian international relations, in particular, the India– Pakistan con ict since the late 1940s (Brecher 1963). [Three scholars presented somewhat different de nitions of a subordi- nate system and a focus on three other regions: Binder (1958 Middle East), Modelski (1961 South East Asia), and Hodgkin (1961 West Africa)]. Concept 2: Foreign Policy System This concept, which took the form of a pre-theory of foreign policy, was developed in the mid-late 1960s and was rst published as “A Framework for Research on Foreign Policy Behavior,” in the Journal of Con ict Resolution, 1969, and was elabo- rated in my book The Foreign Policy System of Israel (1972). The research design was based on a simple proposition: the concept of system is no less valid in foreign policy analysis than in the study of domestic politics. Like all systems of action, a foreign policy system comprises an 18 M. BRECHER environment or setting, a group of actors, structures through which they initiate decisions and respond to challenges, and processes which sustain or alter the ow of demands and products of the system as a whole. Underlying this research design is the view that the operational envi- ronment, reality, affects the results or outcomes of decisions directly but in uences the choice among policy options, that is, the decisions themselves, only as they are ltered through the images [perceptions] of decision- makers. Thus, the link between perceptions and decisions is the master key to a valuable framework of foreign policy analysis. fl fl fi fi fl fl fi fi This relationship of the two environments—operational and psycho- logical—also provides a technique for measuring ‘success’ in foreign policy decisions. To the extent that decision-makers perceive the opera- tional environment accurately, their foreign policy acts may be said to be rooted in reality and are thus more likely to be ‘successful.’ To the extent that their images are inaccurate, policy choices will be ‘unsuccessful’; that is, there will be a gap between elite-de ned objectives and policy out- comes. The boundaries of a foreign policy system are vertical, that is, they encompass all inputs and outputs that affect decisions, whose content and scope lie essentially in the realm of International Relations, World Politics. As such, the boundaries uctuate from one issue to another. It is necessary, therefore, to explore the content and interrelations of these key variables—environment, actors, structures, decisions, processes and issues—all placed within a framework of demands on policy or inputs, and products of policy or outputs. A foreign policy system may thus be likened to a ow into and out of a network of structures or institutions that perform certain functions and thereby produce decisions. These, in turn, feed back into the system as inputs in a continuous ow of demands on policy, the policy process, and the products of policy. All foreign policy systems, then, comprise a set of components which can be classi ed into three general categories, inputs, process, and outputs, a concept of the political system pioneered by David Easton in a World Politics article (1957). All data regarding foreign pol- icy can be classi ed into one of these categories. Concept 3: International System Two questions about international system were posed in 1980 by a prominent IR scholar, Dina Zinnes: (1) ‘how do we know one when we see one’ and (2) ‘what distin- guishes one from another’? A new de nition of international system, that 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 19 provides answers to these questions, was presented in a 1984 joint paper with an ICB associate, Brecher and Hemda Ben-Yehuda. An international system is a set of [state] actors who are situated in a con guration of power (structure), are involved in regular patterns of interaction (process), are separated from other units by boundaries set by a given issue, and are constrained in their behavior from within (context) and from outside the system (environment). The essential properties of an international system are structure, pro- cess, equilibrium, and stability. Structure refers to how the actors in a system stand in relation to each other. Its basic variables are the number of actors and the distribution of power among them, from unipolar through bipolar to multipower or polycentric. Process designates the interaction patterns among the actors of a sys- tem. A link between structure and process is postulated: every struc- ture has a corresponding interaction process, and a structure creates and maintains regular interaction. fi fi fl fl fi fi fl fi fi Issue is another distinctive property of a system, which serves to demarcate its boundaries. This concept may be de ned as a speci c shared focus of interest for two or more actors. There are war–peace issues, economic and developmental issues, political, cultural, status, and technological issues within broader categories of issue-areas. Every system has Boundaries which differentiate two kinds of effects on the behavior of actors—contextual, those arising from within a sys- tem, and environmental, those from outside. Context and Environment incorporate all geographic, political, military, technological, societal, and cultural elements that affect the structure and process of a system, from within and from outside the system, respectively. The de nition of international system presented above enables us to identify a system. Other concepts are needed to distinguish among sys- tems. These are Stability and Equilibrium, system attributes. The concept of Change is the key to the distinction between stability and equilibrium, as well as to the organic link between them. Change may be de ned as a shift from, or an alteration of, an existing pattern of interaction between two or more actors in the direction of greater con ict or cooperation. Change may also occur in the structure of a system, namely, an increase or decrease in the number of actors and/or a shift in the distribution of power among them. 20 M. BRECHER Stability may be de ned as change within explicit bounds. Instability designates change beyond a normal uctuation range. These concepts may be operationalized in terms of the quantity (number) of change(s) in the structure of a system, its process or both, ranging from no changes to many changes. This continuum denotes degrees of stability. The absence of change indicates pure stability, its presence, and some degree of instability. Instability in the international system can be illustrated by change in the volume of such phenomena as wars or crises involving essen- tial actors. Equilibrium may be de ned as the steady state of a system, denoting change below the threshold of reversibility. Disequilibrium designates change beyond the threshold of reversibility. This meaning is broader than the notion of balance of power, a widely used synonym for equilib- rium in the world politics literature. Incremental change indicates a state of equilibrium, which has no effect on the system as a whole. Step-level (irreversible) change indicates disequilibrium, which inevitably leads to system transformation, that is, a change in essential actors and/or the distribution of power among them. The new system, with properties which signi cantly differ from those of its predecessor, denotes a new equilibrium, that is, changes within it which are reversible. Every system has explicit or implicit rules of the game. Many interna- tional systems permit resort to violence as an instrument of crisis and con ict management. This is evident in the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, enshrined in international institutions of the twentieth-century multipower system (League of Nations), as well as the bipolar, bipolycentric, and unipolycentric systems (United Nations). fl fl fi fi fi fi fi fl fi fi fi In sum, a revised de nition of international system comprises six com- ponents: actors, structure, process, boundaries, context, and environment. Furthermore, the two basic system attributes, stability and equilibrium, were rede ned and the links between them speci ed, completing the dual task of identifying and differentiating systems. Concepts 4 and 5 International Crisis (presented in my articles in International Studies Quarterly 1977, The Journal of Con ict Resolution 1979, and many other publications during the past three decades, culminating in my book, International Political Earthquakes ), occurs at two levels of analysis. An international (macro-level) crisis is conceived as an international political earthquake. It denotes (1) a change in type and/or an increase 1 MULTIPLE PATHS TO KNOWLEDGE 21 in intensity of disruptive interactions between two or more states, with a heightened probability of war/military hostilities that, in turn, (2) desta- bilizes their relationship and challenges the structure of an international system. A foreign policy (micro-level) crisis derives from three interrelated perceptions by a state’s decision-makers of (1) a threat to one or more basic values, (2) nite time for response, and of (3) heightened probabil- ity of military hostilities before the challenge is overcome. The two levels of analysis are distinct but interrelated. Concept 6: Uni ed Model of Crisis(UMC) is an analytical device to explain interstate crisis as a whole. It builds upon the logic of a model of international crisis and a model of foreign policy crisis and integrates them into an integrated model of interstate crisis. It also attempts to incorporate the models of the onset, escalation, and de-escalation phases, and a model of impact, into a systemic, uni ed model. This synthesis is the prototype of a theory of interstate crisis. Concepts 7 and 8 Crisis Severity and Crisis Impact refer to different types of change in different time frames. Severity is a composite of situational attributes during an international crisis (international political earthquake). The term refers to the volume of disruptive change between/among crisis actors from onset to termination of an international crisis, that is, an international political earthquake, and denotes the extent of instability. Severity measures the intensity of disruptive change during the course of the earthquake. It is a compos- ite of scores for six indicators of Severity of an international crisis, each on a four-point scale: number of crisis actors, gravity of values threatened, violence, major power involvement, geostrategic salience, and duration. fi fl fi fi fi Impact is a composite of effects of an international crisis (political earthquake) on an international system and/or subsystem(s), as well as on the relationship between/among principal adversaries, after the end of a crisis. It refers, in system terms, to the extent of structural change or irreversibility and thus denotes the presence or absence of equilibrium. To capture the multiple effects, impact is measured by four indicators of change, each, like the indicators of severity, on a four-point scale: change in actors, power relations, alliance con guration, and norms or rules of behavior. In sum, Severity refers to the extent of disruptive interaction while an international political earthquake (international crisis) is in motion 22 M. BRECHER (instability). Impact refers to structural change after an earthquake (cri- sis) has ended (disequilibrium). Concept 9: Protracted Con ict —the initial formulation (Brecher 1993) and elaborations of this concept (as noted, to Brecher 2016 L) were cited in the introduction to the analysis of 13 twentieth-century protracted con icts earlier in this book. The lessthan-crystallized intel- lectual origins of this concept date to my early research phases, speci - cally, to the protracted con icts between the Arab states and Israel, and between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, which I rst encountered in 1948–1951 and 1950–1952, respectively; both con icts remain unre- solved almost seven decades later. fl fi fl fl fl fi Concept 10 Polycentrism was initially formulated and applied in Brecher and Wilkenfeld, Crises in the Twentieth Century: Handbook on International Crises (Vol. I), 1988. Its conceptual kin—Bipolycen- trism and Unipolycentrism—were developed and applied in Brecher, International Political Earthquakes (2008).