Buck-passing: A Theoretical Framework and Case Studies on the Munich Crisis and the Korean War
|Název práce v češtině:||Buck-passing: Teoretický ráme a případové studie Mnichovské krize a Korojeské války|
|Název v anglickém jazyce:||Buck-passing: A Theoretical Framework and Case Studies on the Munich Crisis and the Korean War|
|Klíčová slova anglicky:||Buck-passing, Munich Agreement, Korean War, Three-party Interaction, Realism|
|Akademický rok vypsání:||2019/2020|
|Typ práce:||diplomová práce|
|Ústav:||Katedra politologie (23-KP)|
|Vedoucí / školitel:||RNDr. Jan Kofroň, Ph.D.|
|Řešitel:||skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem|
|Datum a čas obhajoby:||24.01.2022 08:00|
|Místo konání obhajoby:||Pekařská 16, JPEK301, 301, Malá učebna, 3.patro|
|Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby:||03.01.2022|
|Datum proběhlé obhajoby:||24.01.2022|
|Oponenti:||PhDr. Michael Romancov, Ph.D.|
|Seznam odborné literatury|
1. Academic Works
Andreas Mayor (ed.). 1953. Ciano’s Hidden Diary 1937-1938. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Baker, James Franklin. 1971. The United States and the Czechoslovak Crisis, 1938-1939. Doctoral dissertation, Department of History, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
Beckley, Michael. 2018. “The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters.” International Security 43(2): 7-44.
Bennett, Andrew. 2004. “Case Study Methods: Design, Use, and Comparative Advantages.” In Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations, eds. Detlef F. Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Nahmias. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 19-55.
Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. 2007. “Case Study Methods in the International Relations Subfield.” Comparative Political Studies 40(2): 170-195.
Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey T Checkel. 2015. “Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practices.” In Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, eds. Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bergsmann, Stefan. 2001. “The Concept of Military Alliance.” In Small States and Alliances, eds. Erich Reiter and Heinz Gärtner. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 25-38.
Blower, Brooke L. 2014. “From Isolationism to Neutrality: A New Framework for Understanding American Political Culture, 1919–1941.” Diplomatic History 38(2): 345-376.
Braumoeller, Bear F. 2010. “The Myth of American Isolationism.” Foreign Policy Analysis 6(4): 349-371.
Caquet, Pierre E. 2019. The Bell of Treason: The 1938 Munich Agreement in Czechoslovakia. New York: Other Press.
Carley, Michael Jabara. 2010. “‘Only the Ussr Has… Clean Hands’: The Soviet Perspective on the Failure of Collective Security and the Collapse of Czechoslovakia, 1934–1938 (Part 2).” Diplomacy & Statecraft 21(3): 368-396.
Carley, Michael Jabara. 2015. “Who Betrayed Whom? Franco-Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1932–1939.” In Gab Es Einen Stalin-Hitler-Pakt? Charakter, Bedeutung Und Deutung Des Deutsch-Sowjetischen Nichtangriffsvertrages Vom 23. August 1939, eds. Christoph Koch. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Publishing, 119-137.
Chang, Jung, and Jon Halliday. 2005. Mao: The Unknown Story: Anchor.
Chang, Su-Ya. 2011. The Korean War Saved Taiwan? Interpretation on the United States Taiwan Policy. New Taipei City: Acropolis Publisher (張淑雅，2011，《韓戰救臺灣？解讀美國對臺政策》，新北市：衛城出版 ).
Christensen, Thomas J, and Jack Snyder. 1990. “Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity.” International Organization 44(2): 137-168.
Christensen, Thomas J, and Jack Snyder. 1997. “Progressive Research on Degenerate Alliances.” American Political Science Review 91(4): 919-922.
Crawford, Timothy W. 2011. “Preventing Enemy Coalitions: How Wedge Strategies Shape Power Politics.” International Security 35(4): 155-189.
Crawford, Timothy W. 2021. The Power to Divide: Wedge Strategies in Great Power Competition. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Dodd, William E, and Martha Dodd. 1945. Ambassador Dodd’s Diary 1933-1938. London: Victor Gollancz.
Dogan-Akkas, Betul. 2020. “The UAE’s Foreign Policymaking in Yemen: From Bandwagoning to Buck-Passing.” Third World Quarterly 42(4): 717-735.
Edelstein, David M. 2018. “Cooperation, Uncertainty, and the Rise of China: It’s About ‘Time’.” The Washington Quarterly 41(1): 155-171.
Edelstein, David. 2002. “Managing Uncertainty: Beliefs About Intentions and the Rise of Great Powers.” Security Studies 12(1): 1-40.
Farnham, Barbara. 1992. “Roosevelt and the Munich Crisis: Insights from Prospect Theory.” Political Psychology: 205-235.
Fearon, James D. 1994a. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” American Political Science Review 88(3): 577-592.
Fearon, James D. 1994b. “Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests: An Empirical Test of a Crisis Bargaining Model.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38(2): 236-269.
Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49(3): 379-414.
Fearon, James D. 1997. “Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands Versus Sinking Costs.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(1): 68-90.
Gallagher, Matthew D. 1971. “Leon Blum and the Spanish Civil War.” Journal of Contemporary History 6(3): 56-64.
Gallup, George, and Claude Robinson. 1938. “American Institute of Public Opinion—Surveys, 1935–38.” Public Opinion Quarterly 2(3): 373-398.
Goncharov, Sergei N., John Wilson Lewis, and Litai Xue. 1993. Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War. California: Stanford University Press.
Green, Brendan Rittenhouse. 2012. “Two Concepts of Liberty: Us Cold War Grand Strategies and the Liberal Tradition.” International Security 37(2): 9-43.
Halperin, Morton H. 1963. “The Limiting Process in the Korean War.” Political Science Quarterly 78(1): 13-39.
Hao, Yufan, and Zhai Zhihai. 1990. “China’s Decision to Enter the Korean War: History Revisited.” The China Quarterly 121: 94-115.
Haruki, Wada. 2018. The Korean War: An International History. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Haslam, Jonathan 1984. The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Collective Security in Europe, 1933-39. London and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Herring, George C. 2008. From Colony to Superpower: Us Foreign Relations since 1776. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hitler, Adolf. 2018. Mein Kampf: Volume One. Translated by Thomas Dalton. New York: Clemens & Blair.
Hochman, Jiří. 1984. The Soviet Union and the Failure of Collective Security, 1934-1938. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hsiao, Tao-chung. 2016. “The Cold War in the United Nations: A Case Study of China’s Accusation of the United Statess’ Invasion of Taiwan in 1950.” Bulletin of Historical Research (55): 139-183 (蕭道中，2016，《聯合國中的交鋒：1950 年中國控訴美國侵略臺灣案研究》，〈臺灣師大歷史學報〉，(55)：139-183。).
Ickes, Harold L. 1954. The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: The inside Struggle 1936–1939. Vol. II. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ifft, Edward. 2007. “Deterrence, Blackmail, Friendly Persuasion.” Defense & Security Analysis 23(3): 237-256.
Jackson, Peter. 1998. “French Intelligence and Hitler’s Rise to Power.” The Historical Journal 41(3): 795-824.
Jacobson, Jon. 2004. “Locarno, Britain and the Security of Europe.” In Locarno Revisited, eds. Gaynor Johnson. New York: Routledge, 21-35.
Jervis, Robert. 1991. “Domino Beliefs and Strategic Behavior.” In Dominoes and Bandwagons: Strategic Beliefs and Great Power Competition in the Eurasian Rimland, eds. Robert Jervis and Jack Snyder. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20-50.
Jonas, Manfred. 1966. Isolationism in America 1935-1941. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jones, Seth G. 2003. “The European Union and the Security Dilemma.” Security Studies 12(3): 114-156.
Kane, Tim. “Global Us Troop Deployment, 1950-2005.” Heritage Foundation in https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/global-us-troop-deployment-1950-2005. Latest Update 1 January 2022.
Kassab, Hanna Samir. 2015. Weak States in International Relations Theory: The Cases of Armenia, St. Kitts and Nevis, Lebanon, and Cambodia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
Kaufman, B. Peter. 1988. “Soviet Attitudes toward Collective Security in Europe, 1936-38.” Russian History 15(2-4): 427-444.
Kaufman, Robert G. 1992. “‘To Balance or to Bandwagon?’ Alignment Decisions in 1930s Europe.” Security Studies 1(3): 417-447.
Kennedy, David M. 2001. Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, Paul. 1988. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.
Kim, Donggil, and Park Dajung. 2016. “Prc Policy Making and Its Change for Intervention in Early Phase of the Korean War.” Collected Papers Of History Studies (4): 70-82 (金東吉、樸多晶，2016，《朝鮮戰爭初期中國出兵朝鮮決策及變化原因探析》，〈史學集刊〉，(4)：70-82。).
Kim, Donggil. 2011. “Stalin’s Korean U-Turn: The Ussr’s Evolving Security Strategy and the Origins of the Korean War.” Seoul Journal of Korean Studies 24(1): 89-114.
Kim, Donggil. 2016. “New Insights into Mao’s Initial Strategic Consideration Towards the Korean War Intervention.” Cold War History 16(3): 239-254.
Krause, Volker, and David Singer. 2001. “Minor Powers, Alliances, and Armed Conflict: Some Preliminary Patterns.” In Small States and Alliances, eds. Erich Reiter and Heinz Gärtner. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 15-24.
Krotz, Ulrich. 2014. “Three Eras and Possible Futures: A Long-Term View on the Franco-German Relationship a Century after the First World War.” International Affairs 90(2): 337-350.
Lake, David A. 2013. “Theory Is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 567-587.
Layne, Christopher. 2008. “Security Studies and the Use of History: Neville Chamberlain’s Grand Strategy Revisited.” Security Studies 17(3): 397-437.
Levy, Jack S. 1983. War in the Modern Great Power System: 1495-1975. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.
Lind, Jennifer M. 2004. “Pacifism or Passing the Buck? Testing Theories of Japanese Security Policy.” International Security 29(1): 92-121.
Lobell, Steven E. 2012. “Bringing Balancing Back In: Britain’s Targeted Balancing, 1936–1939.” Journal of Strategic Studies 35(6): 747-773.
Lukes, Igor. 1996. Czechoslovakia between Stalin and Hitler: The Diplomacy of Edvard Beneš in the 1930s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maddison, Angus. “Statistics on World Population, Gdp and Per Capita Gdp, 1-2008 Ad.” http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/vertical-file_02-2010.xls. Latest Update 1 January 2022.
Magee, Frank. 1995. “‘Limited Liability’? Britain and the Treaty of Locarno.” Twentieth Century British History 6(1): 1-22.
Maitra, Sumantra “Buck-passing in South China Sea – Analysis.” https://www.eurasiareview.com/28122015-buck-passing-in-south-china-sea-analysis/. Latest Update 1 January 2022.
Mallett, Robert. 2004. “The Anschluss Question in Italian Defence Policy, 1933-37.” Intelligence & National Security 19(4): 680-694.
Marcowitz, Reiner. 2008. “Attraction and Repulsion: Franco-German Relations in the ‘Long Nineteenth Century’.” In A History of Franco-German Relations in Europe: From “Hereditary Enemies” to Partners, eds. Carine Germond and Henning Türk. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mathews, Joseph J. 1941. “The Anglo-French Alliance and the War.” The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 21(4): 351-359.
McKercher, BJC. 2017. “Anschluss: The Chamberlain Government and the First Test of Appeasement, February–March 1938.” The International History Review 39(2): 274-294.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Mikoyan, Anastas Ivanovich. 2010. “Secret Mission in Visiting China.” Wenshi Jinghua (1/2): 118-121 (米高揚，2010，《赴華秘密使命》，〈文史精華〉，(1/2)：118-121。).
Mochizuki, Mike M. 2007. “Japan’s Shifting Strategy toward the Rise of China.” Journal of Strategic Studies 30(4-5): 739-776.
Moul, William B. 1985. “Balances of Power and European Great Power War, 1815–1939: A Suggestion and Some Evidence.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 18(3): 481-528.
Online, Oxford English Dictionary. “Strategy, N.” Oxford University Press, www.oed.com/view/Entry/191319. Latest Update 1 January 2022.
Parent, Joseph M., and Sebastian Rosato. 2015. “Balancing in Neorealism.” International Security 40(2): 51-86.
Parker, RAC. 1956. “The First Capitulation: France and the Rhineland Crisis of 1936.” World Politics 8(3): 355-373.
Philpott, William J. 2002. “The Benefit of Experience? The Supreme War Council and the Higher Management of Coalition War, 1939–40.” In Anglo-French Defence Relations between the Wars, eds. Martin S. Alexander and William James Philpott. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 209-226.
Posen, Barry. 1986. The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars. New York: Cornell University Press.
Powell, Robert 1996. “Uncertainty, Shifting Power, and Appeasement.” American Political Science Review 90(4): 749-764.
Quek, Kai. 2021. “Four Costly Signaling Mechanisms.” American Political Science Review 115(2): 537-549.
Ragsdale, Hugh. 2004. The Soviets, the Munich Crisis, and the Coming of World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rasler, Karen A. 1994. The Great Powers and Global Struggle, 1490-1990. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.
Ratti, Luca. 2012. “All Aboard the Bandwagon? Structural Realism and Italy’s International Role.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 23(1): 87-109.
Reiter, Erich, and Heinz Gärtner. 2001. Small States and Alliances. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Richey, Mason. 2020. “Buck-Passing, Chain-Ganging and Alliances in the Multipolar Indo-Asia-Pacific.” The International Spectator 55(1): 1-17.
Ripsman, Norrin M, and Jack S Levy. 2007. “The Preventive War That Never Happened: Britain, France, and the Rise of Germany in the 1930s.” Security Studies 16(1): 32-67.
Ripsman, Norrin M., and Jack S. Levy. 2008. “Wishful Thinking or Buying Time the Logic of British Appeasement in the 1930s.” International Security 33(2): 148–181.
Salerno, Reynolds M. 1994. “Multilateral Strategy and Diplomacy: The Anglo‐German Naval Agreement and the Mediterranean Crisis, 1935–1936.” The Journal of Strategic Studies 17(2): 39-78.
Schelling, Thomas C. 2008. Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schuker, Stephen A. 1986. “France and the Remilitarization of the Rhineland, 1936.” French Historical Studies 14(3): 299-338.
Schweller, Randall L. 1994. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19(1): 72-107.
Schweller, Randall L. 1998. Deadly Imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler’s Strategy of World Conquest. New York: Columbia University Press.
Schweller, Randall L. 2004. “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing.” International Security 29(2): 159-201.
Schweller, Randall L. 2006. Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Seawright, Jason, and John Gerring. 2008. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political research quarterly 61(2): 294-308.
Shen, Zhihua, and Yafeng Xia. 2011. “Mao Zedong’s Erroneous Decision During the Korean War: China’s Rejection of the Un Cease-Fire Resolution in Early 1951.” Asian Perspective 35(2): 187-209.
Shen, Zhihua. 2000. The Economic Background of the Sino-Russian Ally: 1948-1953. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies (沈志華，2000，《中蘇同盟的經濟背景：1948-1953》，香港：香港亞太研究所。).
Shen, Zhihua. 2012. Mao, Stalin and the Korean War: Trilateral Communist Relations in the 1950s: Routledge.
Shen, Zhihua. 2013. Mao Zedong, Stalin, and the Korean War. Guangzhou: Guangdong People’s Publishing House (沈志華，2013，《毛澤東、斯大林與朝鮮戰爭》，廣州：廣東人民出版社。).
Shiping, Tang. 2010. “Offence-Defence Theory: Towards a Definitive Understanding.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 3(2): 213-260.
Singer, J David, and Melvin Small. 1966. “The Composition and Status Ordering of the International System: 1815–1940.” World Politics 18(2): 236-282.
Singer, J David, Stuart Bremer, and John Stuckey. 1972. “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820-1965.” Peace, war, and numbers 19(48): 427.
Snyder, Glenn H. 1983. “The Security Dilemma in Alliance Politics.” World Politics 36(4): 461.
Snyder, Glenn H. 1990. “Alliance Theory: A Neorealist First Cut.” Journal of International Affairs: 103-123.
Snyder, Glenn H. 1997. Alliance Politics. New York: Cornell University Press.
Stein, George H. 1962. “Russo-German Military Collaboration: The Last Phase, 1933.” Political Science Quarterly 77(1): 54-71.
Steiner, Zara. 1999. “The Soviet Commissariat of Foreign Affairs and the Czechoslovakian Crisis in 1938: New Material from the Soviet Archives.” The Historical Journal 42(3): 751-779.
Stone, Glyn. 1979. “Britain, Non-Intervention and the Spanish Civil War.” European Studies Review 9(1): 129-149.
Strang, G. Bruce. 2007. “War and Peace: Mussolini’s Road to Munich.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 10(2-3): 160-190.
Stueck, William. 1995. The Korean War: An International History. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Sung, Jung Chul. 2018. “Lonely China, Popular United States: Power Transition and Alliance Politics in Asia.” Pacific Focus 33(2): 260-283.
Tang, Shiping. 2010. A Theory of Security Strategy for Our Time: Defensive Realism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tang, Shiping. 2018. “Idea, Action, and Outcome: The Objects and Tasks of Social Sciences.” World Economics and Politics (5): 33-59 (唐世平，2018，《觀念、行動和結果：社會科學的客體和任務》，〈世界經濟與政治〉 (5)：33-59。 ).
Time. “The Congress: Foreign Aid—Three Years.” http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,856833,00.html. Latest Update 1 January 2022.
Toft, Peter. 2005. “John J. Mearsheimer: An Offensive Realist between Geopolitics and Power.” Journal of International Relations and Development 8(4): 381-408.
Tollardo, Elisabetta. 2016. Fascist Italy and the League of Nations, 1922-1935. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Treisman, Daniel. 2004. “Rational Appeasement.” International Organization 58(02).
Tucker, Robert C. 1977. “The Emergence of Stalin’s Foreign Policy.” Slavic Review 36(4): 563-589.
Turnbull, Stephen. 2013. The Mongol Invasions of Japan 1274 and 1281. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Vasquez, John A. 1997. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative Versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz’s Balancing Proposition.” American Political Science Review 91(4): 899-912.
Walt, Stephen M. 1990. The Origins of Alliance. New York: Cornell University Press.
Walt, Stephen M. 1991. “Alliance Formation in Southwest Asia: Balancing and Bandwagoning in Cold War Competition.” In Dominoes and Bandwagons: Strategic Beliefs and Great Power Competition in the Eurasian Rimland, eds. Robert Jervis and Jack Snyder. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51-84.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1964. “The Stability of a Bipolar World.” Daedalus 93(3): 881-909.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Weathersby, Kathryn. 1993. “The Soviet Role in the Early Phase of the Korean War: New Documentary Evidence.” Journal of American-East Asian Relations 2(4): 425-458.
Weinberg, Gerhard L. 1957. “The May Crisis, 1938.” The Journal of Modern History 29(3): 213-225.
Weinberg, Gerhard L. 1994 Hitler’s Foreign Policy 1933-1939: The Road to World War Ii. New Jersey: Humanities Press
Whealey, Robert H. 2004. Hitler and Spain: The Nazi Role in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.
Wilkins, Thomas S. 2012. “‘Alignment’, Not ‘Alliance’ – the Shifting Paradigm of International Security Cooperation: Toward a Conceptual Taxonomy of Alignment.” Review of International Studies 38(1): 53-76.
Wolfers, Arnold. 1962. Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wright, Jonathan. 1995. “Stresemann and Locarno.” Contemporary European History 4(2): 109-131.
Yang, Tzu-Ying 2016. “A Comparative Study of the Works and Historical Materials between the Two Sides of the Taiwan Straits on the Kuningtou Battle.” Hwa Kang Journal of the Historical Studies (4): 117-160 (楊紫瑩，2016，《海峽兩岸對古寧頭戰役論著及史料之比較研究》，〈華岡史學〉，(4)：117-160。).
2. Documents and Collected Papers
Chinese Communist Party Central Literature Studying Institute (ed.). 1999. Selected Pieces of Mao Zedong. Vol. VI. Beijing: People’s Publishing House (中共中央文獻研究室（編），1999，《毛澤東文集》，第六卷，北京：人民出版社。).
Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. 1949. Ser. Third. Vol. I. Edited by Ernest Llewellyn Woodward and Rohan Butler. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. 1949. Ser. Third. Vol. II. Edited by Ernest Llewellyn Woodward and Rohan Butler. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. 1954. Ser. Third. Vol. VII. Edited by Ernest Llewellyn Woodward and Rohan Butler. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945. 1949. Ser. D. Vol. I. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945. 1949. Ser. D. Vol. II. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers 1935. 1953. Vol. I. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers 1936. 1953. Vol. I. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers 1937. 1954. Vol. I. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers 1938. 1955. Vol. I. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers 1950. 1977. Vol. I. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers 1950. 1980. Vol. IV. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, and Chinese Communist Party Central Literature Studying Institute (eds.). 1990. Selected Pieces Concerning Zhou Enlai Diplomacy. Beijing: Central Literature Publishing House (中華人民共和國外交部、中共中央文獻研究室（編），1990，《周恩來外交文選》，北京：中央文獻出版社。).
Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States 1921. 1936. Vol. II. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States 1930. 1945. Vol. III. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Peace and War: United States Foreign Policy, 1931-1941. 1943. Washington: United States Government Printing Office.
Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman. 1965. Washington: United States Government Printing Office
Selected Pieces of Mao Zedong since the Foundation of New China. 1987. Vol. I. Beijing: Central Literature Publishing House (《建國以來毛澤東文稿》，1987，第一冊，北京：中央文獻出版社。).
Shen, Zhihua (ed.). 2003a. The Korean War: Declassified Documents from Archives in Russia I. Taipei: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica (沈志華（編），2003a，《俄國檔案館的解密文件（上冊）》，台北：中央研究院近代史研究所。).
Shen, Zhihua (ed.). 2003b. The Korean War: Declassified Documents from Archives in Russia II. Taipei: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica (沈志華（編），2003b，《俄國檔案館的解密文件（中冊）》，台北：中央研究院近代史研究所。).
Shen, Zhihua (ed.). 2015a. Selected Declassified Russian Archives: Sino-Soviet Relations, Volume II, 1949.3-1950.7. Shanghai: Orient Publishing Center (沈志華（編），2015a，《俄羅斯解密檔案選編：中蘇關係 第二卷 1949.3─1950.7》，上海：東方出版中心。).
Shen, Zhihua (ed.). 2015b. Selected Declassified Russian Archives: Sino-Soviet Relations, Volume III, 1950.8─1951.8. Shanghai: Orient Publishing Center (沈志華（編），2015b，《俄羅斯解密檔案選編：中蘇關係 第三卷 1950.8─1951.8》，上海：東方出版中心。).
The Department of State Bulletin. 1950. Vol. XXII. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3. Treaties, Resolutions, and Memorandums
Agreement Signed at Munich between Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, Munich, September 29, 1938, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945, Ser. D, vol. 2, No. 675, p. 1014-1016, available from https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=jwNJAQAAIAAJ.
Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Czechoslovakia, Oct. 16, 1925., League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 54, No. 1296, p. 343-351, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%2054/v54.pdf.
Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and Germany Regarding the Limitation of Naval Armaments, London, June 18, 1935, British and foreign state papers, vol. 139, p. 182-185, available from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049924551&view=1up&seq=200.
German Memorandum Respecting the Termination of the Treaty of Locarno and the Re-Occupation of the Demilitarised Zone in the Rhineland, London, Mar. 7, 1936, British and Foreign State Paper, vol. 140, p. 518-521, available from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049924569.
German-Russian Agreement, Rapallo, Apr. 16, 1922, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 19, No. 498, p. 247-252, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%2019/v19.pdf.
Joint Anglo-Franco-Italian Resolution on European Affairs with Final Declaration and Anglo-Italian Declaration, Apr. 14, 1935, British and foreign state papers, vol. 139, p. 756-758, available from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049924551&view=1up&seq=774.
Joint Anglo-Franco-Italian Resolution on European Affairs, Stresa, Apr.14, 1935, British and Foreign State Paper, vol. 139, p. 756-758, available from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049924551&view=1up&seq=774&skin=2021
Pact of Non-Aggression between France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Paris, Nov. 29, 1932, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 157, No. 3615, p. 411-419, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20157/v157.pdf.
Protocol Concluded by Italy, Germany, and Japan at Rome, Rome, Nov. 6, 1937, Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, Japan: 1931-1941, vol. II, No. 762.94/204, p. 159-160, available from https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/ASLU3O4NOAR5C58W.
Protocol between France and Italy Regarding the Maintenance of the Status Quo in Central Europe and Particularly in Austria, Rome, Jan. 7, 1935, British and foreign state papers, vol. 139, p. 947-948, available from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049924551&view=1up&seq=965&q1=laval.
Security Council Resolution 82 (1950), Calling upon the North Korean Authorities to withdraw their armed forces to the 38th parallel, S/Res/82(1950) (25 June 1950), available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/112025.
Security Council Resolution 83 (1950), on assistance to the Republic of Korea, S/Res/83(1950) (27 June 1950), available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/112026.
Security Council Resolution 84 (1950), on the Korean Question and a Unified Command under the United States, S/Res/84(1950) (7 July 1950), available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/112027.
Treaty between Germany and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, Berlin, Apr. 24, 1926, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 53, No. 1268, p. 387-396, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%2053/v53.pdf.
Treaty of Alliance and Friendship between France and Czechoslovakia, Locarno, Jan. 25, 1924, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 23, No. 1298, p. 361, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%2023/v23.pdf.
Treaty of Alliance between Germany and Italy, Berlin, May 22, 1939, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. 143, p. 499-501, available from https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015049923801&view=1up&seq=535.
Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance (with Exchange of Notes Concerning the Abrogation of the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance and of the Agreements on the Chinese Changchun Railway, Dairen and Port Arthur, Signed on 14 August 1945, and Concerning the Recognition of the Independence of the Mongolian People’s Republic), Moscow, Feb. 14, 1950, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 226, No. 3103, p. 3-19, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20226/v226.pdf.
Treaty of Mutual Assistance between France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Paris, May 2, 1935, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 167, No. 3881, p. 395-406, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20167/v167.pdf.
Treaty of Mutual Assistance between the Czechoslovak Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Prague, May 16, 1935, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 159, No. 3677, p. 347-361, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20159/v159.pdf.
Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between France and Czechoslovakia, Locarno, Oct. 16, 1925, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 54, No. 1298, p. 359-363, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%2054/v54.pdf.
Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy, Locarno, Oct. 16, 1925., League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 54, No. 1292, p. 291-301, available from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%2054/v54.pdf.
|Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce|
The trend of empirical approaches in international relations is thriving. As David Lake pointed out, the focus of international relations as a discipline has shifted from the Great Debates, which drew heavily on the issues of paradigms, ontology, and epistemology, to mid-theory, which concerns more on specific issues or cases in a given historical period (2013: 571-572). In the field of security studies, the dialogue between theoretical concepts and historical cases has become a prominent approach. Standing on the shoulder of grand theories, concepts have been applied to states’ choices on foreign policy for explaining the cases or for testing theories, which is fruitful in various domains, including the development of signaling theory, the balance of power theory, and alliance theory. The case studies with applying concepts from grand theories have not only deepened our understanding of specific historical periods but also fed back to revise and to sophisticate the theory.
Buck-passing is one of the concepts that provide great explanations of historical cases. By the feedback from testing with cases, buck-passing becomes a more relevant concept in international relations theory. The concept was conceptualized from the prediction made by structural realism at first, and later scholars employed the idea as a generalized type of foreign policy. Buck-passing now becomes one of the main defensive strategies in offensive realism, a late school of the realist family, and the concept has been applied to analyze more cases such as the history of western major wars, Japan’s security policy, and the US foreign policy.
Although buck-passing has become a prominent concept, buck-passing as a commonly-used theoretical concept is suffering from the lack of internal coherence and external differentiation. There is no well-acknowledged definition of buck-passing, and scholars conceptualize buck-passing with different definitions, scopes, and criteria. The line between buck-passing and other defensive strategies such as appeasement or distancing is blurred as well. This leads to contradicted explanations of a single case, and they could be unproductive because we cannot assure that the difference comes from the case as an anomaly or simply the different usage of a single concept. This situation could be improved by a clearly-defined and explicitly-elaborated conceptualization of buck-passing.
The thesis is aiming to propose a unified framework of buck-passing, which is potent to serve both the analysis of historical cases and the investigation of current international politics. The thesis is planned to be composed of three parts. The first part is the literature review of buck-passing, summarizing the theories of buck-passing and pointing out the differences among them and issues that require further examination. Second, based on the past development, a revised theory of buck-passing would be proposed, which aims to define the concept more clearly and to elaborate the necessary elements of buck-passing. The third part would be the case studies for testing where the revised buck-passing theory is different from the past theories.
The core research question of the thesis is “how can the concept of buck-passing be refined?”. To cope with this question, the following sub-questions should be answered:
․ What are the main findings of past buck-passing theories and the issues that have been overlooked?
․ Where does the revised buck-passing theory differ from past theories? Why the difference matters?
․ How would the revised theory explain the historical cases? Do the historical cases support the revised theory?
The thesis is planned to be constituted by three parts. The first part is the literature review of buck-passing theory. The literature review’s object should include the critical works of buck-passing theory and the historical studies that apply buck-passing. The section should be able to provide an overview of the development of buck-passing theory, the deficiencies of the current theory, and where we can start to progress.
The second part of the thesis would present a refined theoretical framework of buck-passing. The framework is aimed to propose a comprehensive theory of buck-passing that further examined the overlooked issues in current literature. The framework should cover the following parts.
The operationalization of buck-passing: including the operational definition of buck-passing and why the proposed operational definition could contribute to better identifying buck-passing behaviors from historical cases and on better identifying buck-passing from other strategies.
The theory of buck-passing: examining the critical components of buck-passing theory, which comprises the goal of buck-passing, the actors of buck-passing, the scope of involved parties, the factors facilitating buck-passing, the effects of buck-passing, the relationship between buck-passing and international system (multipolarity and bipolarity), the possible outcomes of buck-passing, and the possible scenarios of buck-passing. Overlooked by past works, buck-passing in bipolarity would be the emphasis in this section. I would suggest a new status of a state—regional great power. Mearsheimer (2001: 40-41) correctly notices the difference between the global level and the regional level, claiming that the regional hegemon is the best outcome since the global hegemon is unachievable due to the stopping power of water. If the status of hegemon has different variations on the global level and the regional level, so does the status of great power. If a distant regional hegemon is unable to exercise its full power in another region, the local power residing in that region does not need the same scale of power to balance against the distant regional hegemon. This kind of state could be called a regional great power, and they are competent to be the buck-catcher when facing aggression from a distant regional hegemon.
The relationship between buck-passing and other strategies: by clarifying the concepts and theory of buck-passing, the external differentiation of buck-passing should be improved. Balancing and bandwagoning both held identifiable actions for differentiating: the former requires deploying military power to contain the aggressor, and the latter join the aggressor. The confusing part is the overlapped between buck-passing and appeasement since low confrontational or passive actions are both depicted as the actions of these two strategies. A suggestion is to position appeasement not as a strategy that has its own unique theory, action, and outcome but an outcome when no defensive state is willing to contain the aggressor, namely to catch the buck. Putting appeasement as the outcome of failed buck-passing is also reasonable on the theoretical dimension: if there could be a successful buck-passing, a state would not choose to appease since the cost of adopting buck-passing would be lower; appeasement would only occur when buck-passing fails.
Case studies would be the third part of the thesis. There are two goals of the case studies section. The first goal is to demonstrate how the proposed theory can be operated in a historical case and where the proposed theory is refined comparing with the past theories. To satisfy the need, World War II would be an appropriate option. The case of World War II involved a number of great powers, and the interaction between the involved states could be a good test for most dimensions of my theory. World War II is also a popular case of buck-passing related studies, which would let the difference between the proposed theory and the past theories more visible. The object of the case study would mainly be the interaction among Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and Germany at the interwar period after 1934, the year Hitler fully acquired dictatorship. It would be focused on how European powers reacted to Nazi Germany as a rising potential hegemon, specifically around the German rearmament and the Munich agreement. The mutual concern of preemption in the German–Soviet Union relations before Operation Barbarossa would be investigated as well.
The second goal of the case studies section is to show a case of buck-passing in bipolarity, which has been ignored by current literature. The Korean War should be a qualified case. The Korean War happened in the period of the Cold War, a typical case of bipolarity. The object of the Korean War case study would be the interaction between China, the Soviet Union, and the US after the US army crossing the 38th parallel north on China’s decision of sending troops into the Korean Peninsula. From the perspective of China, the US after crossing the 38th parallel north for conquering the whole Korean Peninsula was deemed as aggression. The Soviet Union and China shared the collective good as defending the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and expelling the US army out of the Korean Peninsula, yet the Soviet Union at the end only took very limited effort to balance against the US, passing the buck to China. China did catch the buck, sent large troops into the Korean Peninsula, and successfully ensured the survival of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In the Korean War case, the rationale behind states’ decisions and the explanation from the sight of buck-passing theory would be examined.
The expected results are listed as follows:
1. Sketching the whole picture of the current development of buck-passing theory.
2. Proposing a new buck-passing theoretical framework with more clarity, operationality, and external differentiation.
3. Revising the current understanding of no buck-passing taking place in bipolarity
4. Testing the new buck-passing theoretical framework with cases of World War II and the Korean War
5. Providing an in-depth explanation of World War II and the Korean War by the illumination of the new buck-passing theoretical framework
Lake, David A. 2013. “Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 567-587.
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: WW Norton & Company.