Why are sanctions typically unsuccessful in producing compliance with demands (substantial concessions by target only in 20-30% of cases)?
What prevents states in a dispute from reaching an ex ante agreement that avoids the costs they expect will be paid ex post if they go to war.
The claim is that without a credible enforcer, war will sometimes appear the best option for states that have conflicting interests.
This can lead to the disappearance of the zone of agreement
A state may choose to fight now because it fears having to fight later
For more, see chadefaux 2011
A major problem is that the states’ messages are cheap talk. I.e., they convey no information
e.g., Troops close to border
e.g., Audience costs
Puzzle: Why are sanctions typically unsuccessful in producing compliance with demands (substantial concessions by target only in 20-30% of cases)?
Answer: