Content area
Full Text
For several decades, bilateral modeling has been the central tool in much of the theoretical and empirical research on alliance formation. Theoretical investigations into alliance formation were traditionally rooted in dyadic game-theoretical frameworks that feature two primary parties. For example, these models might examine the trade-off of an alliance relationship where a weaker party gains security while ceding policy autonomy to a stronger party. Empirical research has also concentrated almost exclusively on pairs of states when designing research and testing hypotheses pertaining to alliance formation because this framework is favorable in formalizing arguments.
However, alliances cannot always be assumed to be bilateral given that international relations take place in a multilateral context. According to data from the Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions (ATOP), between 1815 and 2003 approximately 90 percent of bilateral alliances were formed through a multilateral pact. With the dominance of bilateral studies, this fact has received far less appreciation than it deserves. A recent study by Fordham and Poast states the need for international relations research on alliance formation to focus on a multilateral, rather than bilateral process. Because theoretical concepts and arguments made under dyadic models do not accurately reflect multilateral circumstances, dyadic analytical approaches fall short in terms of providing a complete understanding of many real-life instances of multilateral alliance formation.
Indeed, because alliances can involve more than two members, they often originate from a multilateral context. The formation of an alliance may hinge on the inclusion or exclusion of a particular entity; thus, an alliance might not make sense without considering the involvement...