À©ÅÙ¹½ÃÛ¤ÎÀ¯¼£·ÐºÑ³Ø¡Ý´üÂԼ¸½¼Ò²ñ¤Ë¸þ¤±¤Æ¡Ý
English
GLOPEII¤Ë¤Ä¤¤¤Æ News ¥¤¥Ù¥ó¥È¥¹¥±¥¸¥å¡¼¥ë ¥ï¡¼¥­¥ó¥°¥Ú¡¼¥Ñ¡¼ GLOPE II À¤ÏÀÄ´ºº°ìÍ÷ ¥ê¥ó¥¯

ͽÄêɽ -¾ÜºÙ¾ðÊó-

·ï̾ BS ·ªºê¼þÊ¿»á
³«»ÏÆü»þ 2009ǯ 7·î 7Æü (²ÐÍËÆü)   10»þ40ʬ (GMT+09:00)
½ªÎ»Æü»þ 2009ǯ 7·î 7Æü (²ÐÍËÆü)   12»þ10ʬ (GMT+09:00)
¾ì½ê 10¹æ´Û408¹æ¼¼
¾ÜºÙ Æü»þ¡§7·î7Æü¡¡10:40-12:10
¾ì½ê¡§10¹æ´Û408¶µ¼¼

·ªºê¡¡¼þÊ¿¡¡»á¡ÊTexas A&MÂç³Ø¡Ë

¥¿¥¤¥È¥ë¡§"Diplomacy, Precrisis Communication, and War"

³µÍס§
During the 2008 Presidential election campaign, publication candidate John McCain argued that diplomatic talks with foreign adversaries risks American security and interests, criticizing Democratic candidate Barak Obama's commitment to the use of diplomatic dialogue in dealing with foreign affairs. Recent rationalist models address this issue in the context of cheap-talk communication prior to crisis bargaining, where two kinds of equilibria are shown to exist: (i) diplomacy is "irrelevant" in that it has no effect on the subsequent crisis and (ii) diplomacy is "dangerous" in that it increases the risk of military confrontation in a crisis that follows. Analyzing an infinitely repeated crisis bargaining game with cheap talk shows that there is yet another equilibrium, where diplomatic arrangements can be made so that diplomatic talks convey much greater credibility than the previous models predicted, and, more importantly, reduces the risk of war in the subsequent crises. If the conventional "dangerous diplomacy" equilibrium captures John McCain's claims that Obama's diplomatic initiative would be naive and dangerous, this new equilibrium provides a rational underpinning for his strategy for diplomacy. As time permits, I will also discuss my research design for testing empirical implications of the theoretical model.
¥«¥Æ¥´¥ê¡¼ À¯¼£·ÐºÑ³Ø´ðÁÃ¥»¥ß¥Ê¡¼¡¦¥é¥ó¥Á¥¿¥¤¥à¥»¥ß¥Ê¡¼
¥µ¥¤¥È¥Þ¥Ã¥×
Home¤Ø