Neutrality plays a vital role in international relations but is under-examined, new research reveals

Researchers have developed a new way of understanding international relations by analyzing nearly 200 years of alliances, hostilities, and neutrality between states.

A research team led by Heriot-Watt University’s Edinburgh Business School in Edinburgh, Scotland, found that neutrality has played a far greater, but understudied, role in global stability than previously thought. They concluded that incorrect labels are often applied.

The study analyzed 192 years of data from 1816 to 2007 from the Correlates of War (CoW) project, which collects and shares data on international relations.

Lead author Dr David Dekker, a research fellow at Edinburgh Business School, said: ‘Our findings show that neutral relationships are more prevalent over longer periods of time than alliances or adversaries, and that they have an impact on international stability. “This shows that they played an extremely important but previously unquantified role.” . ”

Previous studies have largely ignored or underanalyzed neutrality, which has tended to classify international relations as either positive or negative. Within this binary system, neutrality is often mistakenly dismissed or ignored, which is even more problematic. For example, if a friend is allied with one of your enemies, it can put a lot of stress on your relationship and cause conflict.

“In other words, international relations are not just black and white; they are multilayered.”

The research team identified 26 new types of relations between states, introducing neutrality as a third category of analysis alongside positive and negative international relations. They define this new, more detailed measure of relationship structure as “balanced correlations,” and say that this new way of examining relations between nations, and between other parts of society, has profound implications for policymakers. It claims to give.

“Policy makers can benefit from this because they can now quantify types of behavior that were previously unidentified,” Dr. Decker said. “This not only helps us understand power relations between countries, but also helps us develop strategies for supply chains, for example, and create stable learning environments in schools by understanding relationships between students. This is an approach that can be used to

The study, titled “Balance Correlation, Agent Zero, and Networks: 192 Years of the Structure of War and Peace,” was published in the journal PLOS ONE. Co-authors of the study are David Krackhardt of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, USA. Patrick Drejan of the University of Pittsburgh and Ljubljana in Slovenia, and Pavel N. Krivitsky of the University of New South Wales in Australia.

Researchers also found that neutrality can have a dramatic effect on the formation and dissolution of social bonds. During periods when this behavior is widely adopted, it can lead to more conflicts. For example, they identify the 69 years from 1867 to 1936 as a particularly turbulent period in which “neutral behavior” prevailed.

“If one country chooses to be neutral toward another, it can seriously upset the balance of the entire system,” Dr. Decker explained. “And we saw that during this turbulent period, including World War I and all kinds of conflicts around the world. It’s only in the second quarter that we see a more stable pattern emerge again. It wasn’t until after World War II.

The study expands on an interpersonal theory called balance theory, developed during World War II by Austrian psychologist Fritz Heider.

For example, the theory predicts that “a friend of a friend is a friend” by analyzing groups of three people, countries, or other parties. Other predicted relationship groups include “the friend of my enemy is my enemy” and “the enemy of my friend is my enemy.” All of these have different effects on the emotional balance in a three-way relationship.