Study finds allies fulfill treaty promises under most conditions

Study
finds allies fulfill treaty promises under most conditions

BY B.J. ALMOND
Rice News Staff

Although world
leaders usually follow through on promises made in alliance
treaties, certain conditions can help predict when a treaty
violation is likely to occur in times of war, according
to a Rice University researcher.

“Alliance
commitments are most vulnerable when a major change occurs
after the treaty was signed, such as implementation of a
new system of government or a weakening of the country’s
international power,” said Ashley Leeds, associate
professor of political science.

Leeds collected
218 primary documents for military alliances that were signed
between 1816 and 1944, and she coded information about what
the countries would be required to do under various conditions
if war broke out. She then identified 143 instances in which
a war required action by an ally and researched whether
the country fulfilled its commitment to an ally and the
possible explanations for a treaty violation if one occurred.

“New data
analysis provides evidence that alliance commitments are
fulfilled about 75 percent of the time,” Leeds wrote
in the abstract to her research paper, titled “Alliance
Reliability in Times of War: Explaining State Decisions
To Violate Treaties.” The paper was published in the
fall 2003 issue of the journal International Organization.

Because of the
high costs associated with negotiating and instituting alliances,
national leaders are more inclined to be serious about their
commitment if they go to the trouble of formalizing a treaty;
consequently, Leeds argued that treaty violations can best
be understood by analyzing the factors that reduce the costs
of violation or increase the costs of fulfilling the commitment.
Alliances are particularly vulnerable to violation when
factors affecting these costs change after the alliance
is formed.

“Changes
in the power of states or in their policy-making processes
are powerful predictors of the failure to honor past commitments,”
Leeds said.

She cited as
an example the Soviet leaders’ 1917 declaration of
all prior Russian international commitments null and void,
which resulted in all existing alliance treaties being ignored.

By compiling
historical data and creating a model scenario, Leeds found
that if a country’s power changes at least 10 percent,
the probability the country will violate an alliance commitment
rises 35 percent. The probability of alliance violation
for an average country that has not had a significant change
in its international power is only 6 percent, but for a
country that has experienced at least a 10 percent change
in power, the probability is 41 percent.

“Non-democratic
countries and major powers that suffer lower costs from
reneging on agreements are more likely to violate treaties,”
Leeds said, noting the probability of a democratic state
breaking a commitment is 16.5 percent lower than for a non-democratic
state. Major powers have an 11 percent greater probability
of violation than minor powers, who are more likely to fear
retribution from stronger allies if they violate commitments.

“Bluffing
seems to be a fairly rare phenomenon in alliance politics,”
Leeds said. “It seems increasingly unlikely that states
frequently form alliances that they are unwilling to fulfill.”

Leeds noted that
more research on the conditions under which leaders will
or won’t comply with alliance obligations can help
scholars and practitioners influence and anticipate policy
outcomes.

“Leaders
should assume that under most conditions, allies will fulfill
their promises,” she said. “This means that engaging
a state in war when allies have promised to intervene is
a proposition that entails a significant risk of war expansion.
It also means that the deterrent and compellent properties
of alliances should be taken quite seriously.”

Leeds’ research
was supported by the National Science Foundation, Florida
State University and Rice University. Her paper is part
of the Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions project,
a broader effort to collect data on the content of military
alliance treaties.