Beyond Parsimony: Rethinking Theories of Coercive Bargaining

Part of the Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice book series (PAHSEP, volume 2)


Theories of deterrence and compellence incorporate behavioral and political assumptions.


Europe Flare Assure Turkey Stein 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abel, E. (1966). The Missile Crisis (New York: J.B. Lippincott Co).Google Scholar
  2. Adzhubei, A. (1989). Interview, 15 May.Google Scholar
  3. Alekseyev, A. (1988). “The Caribbean Crisis: As It Really Was”, Ekho Plimety 33 (November): 27.Google Scholar
  4. Allison, Graham T. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown).Google Scholar
  5. Art, Robert (1980). “To What Ends Military Power”, International Security 4 (Spring): 10.Google Scholar
  6. Baldwin, D.A. (1980). “Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis”, International Organization 34 (Autumn): 471–506.Google Scholar
  7. Baldwin, D.A. (1985). Economic Statecraft (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  8. Bayard, T.O. and K.A. Elliot (1994). Reciprocity and Retaliation in U.S. Trade Policy (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics).Google Scholar
  9. Betts, R.K. (1987). Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance (Washington, DC: Brookings).Google Scholar
  10. Brams, S.J. (1985). Superpower Games (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  11. Brams, S.J. (1990). Negotiation Games (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  12. Brodie, B. (1946). The Absolute Weapon (New York: Harcourt, Brace).Google Scholar
  13. Brodie, B. (1973). War and Politics (New York: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  14. Bundy, M. (1987). Interview, 12 October.Google Scholar
  15. Bundy, M. (1988). Danger and Survival (New York: Random House).Google Scholar
  16. Burlatsky, F. (1987). Interview, 12 October.Google Scholar
  17. Burlatsky, F. (1989). Back to the Brink: Proceedings of the Moscow Conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis, January 27–28, 1989. Moscow Conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis (Moscow: University Press of America).Google Scholar
  18. Clausewitz, Carl (1976). “On War” in M. Howard and P. Paret (eds). The People in Arms (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  19. Dept of State, U.S. (1962). “US Department of State, Bulletin 49, 19 November 1973, pp. 640–43, and 12 November 1962, pp. 741-43” in D.L. Larson (ed.). The ‘Cuban Crisis’ of 1962: Selected Documents, Chronology and Bibliography, pp. 183-86 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America).Google Scholar
  20. Destler, I.M. and H. Sato, (eds). (1982). Coping with US-Japanese Economic Conflicts (Lexington: D.C. Heath).Google Scholar
  21. Dobrynin, A.F. (1962). “Telegram to Ministry of Defense, 27 October 1962,” in Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Gross Stein (eds). We All Lost the Cold War (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  22. Dupont, C. (1994). “Domestic Politics and International Negotiations: A Sequential Bargaining Model” in P. Allan and C. Schmidt (eds). Game Theory and International Relations: Preferences, Information and Empirical Evidence, pp. 156–90 (Aldershot: Edward Elgar).Google Scholar
  23. Eckstein, H. (1975). “Case Study Theory in Political Science” in F.I. Greenstein and N.W. Pols by (eds). Strategies of Inquiry (Reading: Addison-Wesley).Google Scholar
  24. Friedberg, A. (1988). The Weary Titan (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  25. Garthoff, Raymond L. (1989). Reflections on the Cuban Missile Crisis (Washington, DC: Brookings).Google Scholar
  26. George, Alex L. and W.E. Simons (1994). The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy (Boulder: Westview).Google Scholar
  27. George, Alex L. and R. Smoke (1974). Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
  28. Gribkov, A.L and W.Y. Smith (1994). Operation Anadyr: US and Soviet Generals Recount the Cuban Missile Crisis (Chicago: Edition Q).Google Scholar
  29. Griffiths, F. (1984). “The Sources of American Conduct: Soviet Perspectives and Their Policy Implications”, International Security 9 (2): 3–50.Google Scholar
  30. Harvard University (1987). Proceedings of the Hawk’s Cay Conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis (Cambridge: Harvard University Center for Science and International Affairs).Google Scholar
  31. Herken, G. (1985). Counsels of War (New York: Alfred Knopf).Google Scholar
  32. Herring, E. (1995). Danger and Opportunity: Explaining International Crisis Outcomes (Manchester: Manchester University Press).Google Scholar
  33. Hilsman, R. (1967). To Move A Nation: The Politics of Foreign Policy in the Administration of John F. Kennedy (Garden City: Doubleday).Google Scholar
  34. Hirschman, A.O. (1945). National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
  35. Hopf, T. (1994). Peripheral Visions: Deterrence Theory and American Foreign Policy in the Third World, 1965-1990 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
  36. Horelick, A.L. and M. Rush (1966). Strategic Power and Soviet Foreign Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  37. Huth, P. (1988). Extended Deterrence and the Prevention of War (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  38. Hyland, W. and R.W. Shryock (1968). The Tall of Khrushchev. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.Google Scholar
  39. Jervis, R. (1979). “Deterrence Theory Revisited”, World Politics 31 (January): 289–301.Google Scholar
  40. Jervis, R. (1989). The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  41. Jervis, R, Richard Ned Lebow and Janice Gross Stein (1985). Psychology and Deterrence. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
  42. Kahn, H. (1965). On Escalation (New York: Praeger).Google Scholar
  43. Kaplan, M. (1959). The Strategy of Limited Retaliation (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  44. Karsten, P., P.D. Howell et al. (1984). Military Threats: A Systematic Historical Analysis of the Determinants of Success (Westport: Greenwood).Google Scholar
  45. Kaufmann, W.W. (1954). The Requirements of Deterrence (Princeton: Princeton Center for International Studies).Google Scholar
  46. Kennedy, John F. (1962a). Transcript of Off the-Record Meeting on Cuba, October 16, 1962, 6:30–7:55 p.m. John F. Kennedy Library. Google Scholar
  47. Kennedy, John F. (1962b). Transcript of the White House Tape of 27 October 1962. John F. Kennedy Library. Google Scholar
  48. Kennedy, Robert F. (1969). Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Crisis (New York: Norton).Google Scholar
  49. Khrushchev, Nikita S. (1970). Khrushchev Remembers (Boston: Little, Brown).Google Scholar
  50. Krushchev, Nikita S. (1990). Khrushchev Remembers: The Glasnost Tapes (Boston: Little, Brown).Google Scholar
  51. Khrushchev, Nikita S. (1992). “Khrushchev letter to Kennedy, 30 October 1962”, Problems of Communism, Special Edition (41): 62–73.Google Scholar
  52. Khrushchev, Nikita S. (1961). “For New Victories of the World Communist Movement”, in Communism Peace and Happiness of the Peoples, pp. 9–68 (Moscow: Gospolitizdat. 1).Google Scholar
  53. Khrushchev, S. (1989). Interview, 17 May.Google Scholar
  54. King, J.E. (1975). The New Strategy. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  55. Kissinger, Henry A. (1962). “Reflections on Cuba”, Reporter 22 (November): 21–4.Google Scholar
  56. Knorr, K. (1975). The Power of Nations (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
  57. Kolodziej, E. (1987). “The Limits of Deterrence Theory”, Journal of Social Issues 43 (4): 130–1.Google Scholar
  58. Kratochwil, F.V. (1982). “On the Notion of “Interest” in International Relations”, World Politics 36 (October): 1–30.Google Scholar
  59. Kratochwil, F.V. (1989). Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  60. Kugler, J. (1984). “Terror Without Deterrence”, Journal of Conflict Resolution 28 (September): 470–506.Google Scholar
  61. Langlois, J.-P. (1989). “Modeling Deterrence and International Crises”, Journal of Conflict Resolution 33 (November): 67–83.Google Scholar
  62. Langlois, J.-P. (1991). “Rational Deterrence and Crisis Stability”, American Journal of Political Science 35 (November): 801–32.Google Scholar
  63. Lebow, Richard Ned (1981). Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
  64. Lebow, Richard Ned (1982). “Misconceptions in American Strategic Assessment”, Political Science Quarterly 97 (Summer): 187–206.Google Scholar
  65. Lebow, Richard Ned (1985). Nuclear Crisis Management (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  66. Lebow, Richard Ned. (1988). “Clausewitz and Crisis Stability”, Political Science Quarterly 103 (Spring): 81–110.Google Scholar
  67. Lebow, Richard Ned (1996a). The Art of Bargaining (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
  68. Lebow, Richard Ned (1996b). “Kriege und Erdbeben. Kann die Theorie der internationalen Politik konfliktpraventiv wirken?” Internationale Politik 51 (August): 17–20.Google Scholar
  69. Lebow, Richard Ned. (1996c). “Thomas Schelling and Strategic Bargaining”, International Journal 51 (Summer): 555–76.Google Scholar
  70. Lebow, Richard Ned (1996d). “Play it Again Pericles: A Non-realist Reading of Thucydides”, European Journal of International Relations 2 (2): 231–58.Google Scholar
  71. Lebow, Richard Ned and J.G. Stein (1987). “Beyond Deterrence”, Journal of Social Issues 43 (4): 5–72.Google Scholar
  72. Lebow, Richard Ned and J.G. Stein (1990a). “Deterrence: The Elusive Dependent Variable”, World Politics 42 (April): 336–69.Google Scholar
  73. Lebow, Richard Ned and J.G. Stein (1990b). When Does Deterrence Succeed and How Do We Know? (Ottawa: Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security).Google Scholar
  74. Lebow, Richard Ned and J.G. Stein (1994). We All Lost the Cold War (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  75. Lijphart, A. (1971). “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method”, American Political Science Review 65: 682–93.Google Scholar
  76. McConnell, J.M. (1979). “The “Rules of the Game”: A Theory on the Practice of Superpower Naval Diplomacy”, in B. Dismukes and J.M. McConnell (eds). Soviet Naval Diplomacy, pp. 240–80 (New York: Pergamon).Google Scholar
  77. Maoz, Z. (1983). “Resolve, Capabilities, and the Outcomes of International Disputes, 1816–1976”, Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (2): 195-228.Google Scholar
  78. McNamara, Robert (1987). Interview, 12 October.Google Scholar
  79. Mikoyan, S. (1989). Interview, 17 May.Google Scholar
  80. Millett, A. (1968). The Politics of Intervention (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).Google Scholar
  81. Nalebuff, B. (1986). “Brinkmanship and Nuclear Deterrence: The Neutrality of Escalation”, Conflict Management and Peace Science 9: 19–30.Google Scholar
  82. Organski, A.F.K. and J. Kugler (1980). The War Ledger. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  83. Paul, T.V. (1994). Asymmetric Conflicts: War Initiation by Weaker Powers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  84. Powell, R. (1987). “Crisis Bargaining, Escalation, and MAD”, American Political Science Review 81 (September): 717–27. Google Scholar
  85. Powell, R. (1988). “Nuclear Brinkmanship with Two-Sided Incomplete Information”, American Political Science Review 82 (March): 155–78.Google Scholar
  86. Quester, G. (1989). “Some Thoughts on Deterrence Failures” in Stern, PC., R. Axelrod, R. Jerris, R. Radner, eds. Perspectives on Deterrence, pp. 52–64 (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  87. Rapoport, A. (ed) (1966). Systematic and Strategic Conflict (New York: World Law Fund).Google Scholar
  88. Rhodes, E. (1989). Rational Deterrence and Irrational Responses: The Logic of Nuclear Coercion (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
  89. Richardson, J.L. (1994). Crisis Diplomacy: The Great Powers since the Mid-Nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  90. Rusk, Dean (1987a). Interview, 21 September.Google Scholar
  91. Rusk, Dean (1987b). Interview with James Blight, 18 May.Google Scholar
  92. Rusk, Dean (1987c). Letter to James G. Blight, 25 February.Google Scholar
  93. Rusk, Dean (1990). As I Saw It (New York: W.W. Norton).Google Scholar
  94. Sagan, S.D. (1994). “From Deterrence to Coercion to War: The Road to Pearl Harbor”, in A.L. George and W.E. Simons (eds). The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy, pp. 84–5 (Boulder: Westview).Google Scholar
  95. Schlesinger, A.M. (1965). A Thousand Days (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).Google Scholar
  96. Schelling, Thomas C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  97. Schelling, Thomas C. (1966). Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  98. Schoppa Jr, L.J Bargaining With Japan: What American Pressure Can and Cannot Do (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
  99. Snyder, G. (1971). “Prisoner’s Dilemma” and “Chicken” Models in International Politics”, International Studies Quarterly 15 (March): 66–103.Google Scholar
  100. Snyder, G. and P. Diesing (1977). Conflict Among Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  101. Sorensen, T.C. (1969). The Kennedy Legacy (New York: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  102. Spanier, J. (1965). The Truman-MacArthur Controversy and the Korean War (New York: Norton).Google Scholar
  103. Stein, A.A. (1982). “When Misperception Matters”, World Politics 34 (July): 505–26.Google Scholar
  104. Stein, J.G. (1991). “Deterrence and Reassurance”, in P.E. Tedock et al. (eds). Behavior; Society, and Nuclear War. pp. 8–72 (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  105. Viner, J. (1946). Implications of the Atomic Bomb for International Relations (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society).Google Scholar
  106. Wagner, H. (1989). “Uncertainty, Rational Learning, and Bargaining in the Cuban Missile Crisis”, in P. Ordeshook (eds). Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, pp. 177–205 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).Google Scholar
  107. Wagner, R.H. (1988). “Economic Interdependence, Bargaining Power, and Political Influence”, International Organization 42 (Summer): 461–83.Google Scholar
  108. Wagner, R.H. (1991). “Nuclear Deterrence: Counterforce Strategies, and the Incentive to Strike First”, American Political Science Review 83 (September): 727–49.Google Scholar
  109. Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization 46 (Spring): 391–05.Google Scholar
  110. Whiting, A. (1960). China Crosses the Talu (Stanford: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
  111. Wohlforth, W.C. (1987). “The Perception of Power: Russia in the Pre-1914 Balance”, World Politics 39 (April): 353–81.Google Scholar
  112. Wohlforth, W.C. (1993). The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions during the Cold War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  113. Wohlstetter, Albert (1959). “The Delicate Balance of Power”, Foreign Affairs 37: 211–34.Google Scholar
  114. Wohlstetter, Albert and R. Wohlstetter (1965). Controlling the Risks in Cuba (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies).Google Scholar
  115. Wolfers, Arnold (1962). Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
  116. Zagare, F.C. (1987). The Dynamics of Deterrence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  117. Zagare, F.C. and M. Kilgour (1993). “Asymmetric Deterrence”, International Studies Quarterly 37 (March): 1–27.Google Scholar
  118. Zamyatin, L.M. (1991). Interview.Google Scholar
  119. Zhang, S.G. (1993). Deterrence and Strategic Culture: Chinese-American Confrontations 1949-58 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of War StudiesKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations