College Political Science Quiz: Causes Of War
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Causes Of WarQuestion 1 of 20

Two countries are negotiating a settlement to a dispute. The proposed deal requires Country X to dismantle several military bases in a buffer zone. In exchange, Country Y will provide a substantial package of economic aid. Country X rejects the deal, even though independent analysts agree the value of the aid far exceeds the expected costs of war for Country X. What is the most likely rationalist explanation for this rejection?

Country X has private information that its military is far stronger than Country Y believes, making its expected outcome from war very high.
The leaders of Country X reject the deal due to domestic pressure from a public that views any concession as a sign of weakness.
The military bases are a source of future bargaining power, and Country X cannot trust Country Y not to make further demands after they are dismantled.
The buffer zone is considered sacred, indivisible territory, and its value cannot be compared to economic aid.
← Back to quizzes

College Political Science Quiz

College Political Science Quiz: Causes Of War

Practice Causes Of War in College Political Science with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Causes Of War, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for College Political Science.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Two countries are negotiating a settlement to a dispute. The proposed deal requires Country X to dismantle several military bases in a buffer zone. In exchange, Country Y will provide a substantial package of economic aid. Country X rejects the deal, even though independent analysts agree the value of the aid far exceeds the expected costs of war for Country X. What is the most likely rationalist explanation for this rejection?

  1. Country X has private information that its military is far stronger than Country Y believes, making its expected outcome from war very high.
  2. The leaders of Country X reject the deal due to domestic pressure from a public that views any concession as a sign of weakness.
  3. The military bases are a source of future bargaining power, and Country X cannot trust Country Y not to make further demands after they are dismantled. (correct answer)
  4. The buffer zone is considered sacred, indivisible territory, and its value cannot be compared to economic aid.
Explanation: This scenario illustrates a commitment problem arising from bargaining over a source of power. The military bases are not just assets; their location provides a strategic advantage. By giving them up, Country X would weaken its future bargaining position. Country X fears that once it is weaker, Country Y cannot be trusted to uphold its end of the bargain or will be tempted to press its new advantage. The inability of Country Y to credibly commit to future moderation causes the deal to fail.

Question 2

State A has a probability pp of winning a war against State B. The value of the disputed good is 1. The costs of war for State A are cAc_A and for State B are cBc_B. The bargaining range, representing the set of negotiated outcomes that both sides prefer to war, is defined by which interval?

  1. The interval from p−cBp - c_B to p+cAp + c_A
  2. The single point pp, which is the expected outcome of the war
  3. The interval from p−cAp - c_A to p+cBp + c_B (correct answer)
  4. The entire interval from 00 to 11
Explanation: The bargaining range is the set of deals that both states prefer to the lottery of war. State A's expected value from war is its probability of winning times the value of the good, minus its costs: p−cAp - c_A. This is State A's reservation point; it will not accept any deal less than this. State B's expected value from war is its probability of winning times the value of the good, minus its costs: (1−p)−cB(1-p) - c_B. From State A's perspective, this means State B is willing to give up at most p+cBp + c_B in a settlement. Thus, the range of deals acceptable to both is the interval [p−cA,p+cB][p - c_A, p + c_B].

Question 3

The argument that some conflicts are caused by indivisible issues, such as sovereignty over a holy city, is a challenge to the standard bargaining model of war. Which of the following statements represents the strongest theoretical counterargument to the issue indivisibility thesis?

  1. States primarily fight over divisible goods like resources and territory, so indivisible issues are not empirically significant causes of war.
  2. Even if an issue appears indivisible, the ability to link it to other negotiable issues or offer side payments in another domain makes a peaceful bargain possible. (correct answer)
  3. The high costs of war always create a bargaining range, regardless of the nature of the good being disputed.
  4. Indivisibility is a socially constructed belief rather than an objective property of a good, meaning it is not a rational cause of war.
Explanation: The core critique of the indivisibility argument within the rationalist framework is that creative diplomacy can almost always make an issue divisible. By linking the 'indivisible' good to other issues (e.g., 'We get the city, you get massive economic aid') or arranging side payments, a mutually preferable bargain can be found. This suggests that when war occurs over such an issue, the real cause is likely an information or commitment problem that prevents such a linked bargain from being struck, not the indivisibility of the good itself.

Question 4

Two states are in a dispute. State X possesses a new, secret weapon that would be decisive in a conflict, but its existence is unknown to State Y. Revealing the weapon's existence during negotiations would allow State Y to develop countermeasures. According to the bargaining model, why might this private information lead to war?

  1. The secret weapon creates a significant first-strike advantage, leading State X to launch a preemptive war to maximize its benefit.
  2. State X cannot credibly signal its true military strength without compromising its advantage, leading State Y to make demands that State X would rather fight than accept. (correct answer)
  3. The possession of a secret weapon makes State X's leaders overconfident and risk-acceptant, causing them to reject any peaceful settlement.
  4. State Y has its own private information about a defensive technology, leading to mutual optimism and a failure to locate a bargaining range.
Explanation: This scenario describes an information problem rooted in an incentive to misrepresent. State X has private information about its capabilities but cannot reveal it without losing its strategic advantage. This prevents it from credibly signaling its true strength. State Y, unaware of the weapon, may underestimate State X's resolve or capabilities and make demands that are unacceptable to State X, causing negotiations to fail and war to result. While a first-strike advantage might exist (A), the core bargaining failure is informational.

Question 5

Consider two distinct scenarios:

  1. Country R is developing a nuclear arsenal and is projected to have a deliverable warhead within three years. Fearing a dramatic shift in the regional balance of power, its neighbor, Country S, launches a comprehensive military strike to destroy the program.

  2. Country J detects that its rival, Country K, is mobilizing its armored divisions and moving them toward the border in an apparent prelude to a full-scale invasion expected within 48 hours. Country J launches an immediate air assault on the mobilizing forces.

Based on the passage, how do rationalist explanations of war best classify the conflicts in these two scenarios?

  1. Scenario 1 is a preemptive war caused by an information problem; Scenario 2 is a preventive war caused by a commitment problem.
  2. Scenario 1 is a preventive war caused by a commitment problem; Scenario 2 is a preemptive war caused by a commitment problem. (correct answer)
  3. Both scenarios describe preventive wars caused by shifting power balances, but they occur on different timelines.
  4. Both scenarios describe preemptive wars caused by the immediate fear of attack, driven by information asymmetries.
Explanation: Scenario 1 is a preventive war. It is motivated by a desire to stop a longer-term shift in the balance of power (the acquisition of nuclear weapons). The underlying cause is a commitment problem: Country S fears that a nuclear-armed Country R will make new demands in the future and cannot credibly commit not to. Scenario 2 is a preemptive war. It is motivated by an imminent, immediate threat of attack. The underlying cause is also a commitment problem stemming from a first-strike advantage: given the fear of an impending attack, neither side can credibly commit to not striking first.

Question 6

According to the rationalist framework, how might an international institution like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which conducts inspections of nuclear facilities, help prevent a preventive war?

  1. By militarily enforcing 'red lines' on nuclear proliferation, the IAEA can directly punish any state that violates an agreement.
  2. By providing credible, third-party information on a state's compliance with non-proliferation agreements, the IAEA can alleviate commitment problems. (correct answer)
  3. By revealing private information about the advanced state of a country's nuclear program, the IAEA can help states find the correct bargaining range.
  4. By acting as a mediator, the IAEA can propose creative solutions, such as side payments, to make the issue of nuclear status divisible.
Explanation: Preventive wars are often driven by a commitment problem where a state cannot credibly commit not to develop weapons in the future. Institutions like the IAEA address this by providing monitoring and information. By conducting inspections and making its findings public, the IAEA increases the transparency of a state's activities. This makes it much harder for a state to secretly cheat on an agreement. This monitoring mechanism makes promises to not proliferate more credible, thereby alleviating the commitment problem that could lead another state to launch a preventive strike.

Question 7

Consider a peace agreement signed between two nations recently at war. The terms require both sides to demilitarize and pull back from a shared border. However, one nation's government is unstable and faces a potential coup from a hardline military faction that opposes the peace deal. For the other nation, this situation primarily creates what kind of obstacle to a lasting peace?

  1. A commitment problem, as the current government cannot credibly guarantee that it or its successors will uphold the agreement in the future. (correct answer)
  2. An information problem, as the nation is uncertain about the true level of popular support for the current government.
  3. An issue of indivisibility, because the hardline faction views the border territory as non-negotiable.
  4. A signaling problem, as the unstable government cannot take costly actions to prove its peaceful intentions without angering the military.
Explanation: When analyzing obstacles to peace agreements, you need to distinguish between different types of barriers that can prevent lasting cooperation between former adversaries. This scenario illustrates a commitment problem - one of the most fundamental challenges in international relations. The issue isn't what the current government wants to do, but whether it can make a believable promise about future behavior. Even if today's leadership genuinely supports peace, the threat of a military coup means they cannot credibly guarantee the agreement will be honored tomorrow. The other nation knows this uncertainty makes the peace deal fragile, regardless of current intentions. Let's examine why the other options miss the mark. Option B describes an information problem, but the uncertainty here isn't about popular support levels - it's about whether any agreement will stick given the coup threat. Option C involves indivisibility, where resources cannot be shared or divided, but the scenario describes successful negotiations over border demilitarization, suggesting the territory issue was already resolved. Option D focuses on signaling problems, where actors struggle to communicate their true intentions, but the current government's peaceful intentions are clear - the problem is their inability to guarantee those intentions will persist. The correct answer is A because commitment problems arise when actors cannot make credible promises about future compliance, even when they have current goodwill. Study tip: In peace agreement questions, ask yourself: "Is this about not knowing what someone wants (information), not being able to prove what they want (signaling), not being able to divide something (indivisibility), or not being able to promise future behavior (commitment)?"

Question 8

Two states are bargaining over a territory valued at 100 units. State A has a 60% probability of winning a war. The costs of war would be 15 units for State A and 15 units for State B. What is the total bargaining surplus that the two states can gain by reaching a peaceful settlement instead of going to war?

  1. 15 units
  2. 70 units
  3. 60 units
  4. 30 units (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter bargaining problems in international relations, you're analyzing the bargaining surplus — the total value both parties can gain by avoiding conflict. This concept helps explain why states often negotiate rather than fight. To find the bargaining surplus, you need to compare what each state expects from war versus peace. State A has a 60% chance of winning the territory (worth 100 units) but faces 15 units in war costs. State A's expected value from war is: 0.6×100−15=60−15=450.6 \times 100 - 15 = 60 - 15 = 45 units. State B has a 40% chance of winning but also pays 15 units in costs, so its expected value is: 0.4×100−15=40−15=250.4 \times 100 - 15 = 40 - 15 = 25 units. The total expected value from war for both states combined is 45+25=7045 + 25 = 70 units. However, the territory itself is worth 100 units total. The bargaining surplus is the difference: 100−70=30100 - 70 = 30 units. This represents the value "destroyed" by war costs that peaceful negotiation can preserve. Answer choice (A) 15 units incorrectly represents just one state's war costs. Choice (B) 70 units is the trap of using the combined expected war payoffs instead of recognizing these represent a loss compared to the territory's full value. Choice (C) 60 units mistakenly uses only State A's expected war payoff. Study tip: Remember that bargaining surplus equals the total value at stake minus what both parties expect from conflict. War costs reduce what everyone gains, creating room for mutually beneficial deals.

Question 9

In a territorial dispute, a state's leader makes a public, televised address declaring that 'not one inch of our sacred soil will be relinquished.' Within the bargaining framework, what is the primary purpose of making such a statement public rather than communicating it privately?

  1. To inform the domestic population about the government's foreign policy and ensure national unity.
  2. To satisfy the demands of an international organization that requires public declarations of intent.
  3. To intentionally make the issue indivisible, thereby removing the possibility of a negotiated settlement.
  4. To generate audience costs, making it politically painful for the leader to back down later and thus signaling high resolve. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of audience costs in international relations bargaining theory. When you encounter questions about public vs. private diplomatic communications, think about how making statements public changes the strategic dynamics between negotiating parties. The correct answer is D because public declarations create audience costs - domestic political penalties a leader faces if they later contradict their public position. By declaring "not one inch" on television, the leader deliberately raises the stakes for themselves. If they later compromise, they'll face domestic backlash for appearing weak or dishonest. This self-imposed constraint actually strengthens their bargaining position because it credibly signals to the opponent that backing down would be extremely costly, making their threat more believable. A is incorrect because while public statements do inform citizens, this explanation misses the strategic bargaining purpose. The primary goal isn't unity but credible signaling to the opponent. B is wrong because international organizations don't typically require public territorial declarations, and this doesn't explain why public communication would be strategically preferable to private channels. C incorrectly suggests the leader wants to eliminate negotiated solutions entirely. Actually, audience costs can facilitate negotiations by making commitments more credible - opponents know the leader's resolve is genuine because retreat carries high domestic costs. Study tip: Remember that in IR bargaining theory, constraints can paradoxically increase power. When you see questions about public vs. private diplomatic communication, ask yourself: "How does going public change the domestic political costs for the leader?" This will often point you toward audience costs as the answer.

Question 10

A peace treaty is signed, but it lacks provisions for a neutral third-party to monitor military deployments. This omission makes the treaty particularly vulnerable to failure due to which of the following?

  1. A commitment problem, because without monitoring, neither side can trust the other not to secretly cheat and gain a strategic advantage. (correct answer)
  2. An information problem, because the exact military strength of each side remains private knowledge, fostering mutual suspicion.
  3. An issue of indivisibility, because sovereignty over the monitored areas cannot be shared with a third party.
  4. A signaling problem, because the refusal to include monitors sends a message of untrustworthiness to both sides.
Explanation: Third-party monitoring is a key mechanism for solving commitment problems in post-conflict situations. The basic problem is that each side has an incentive to cheat on the agreement (e.g., by secretly rearming) to improve its future bargaining position. A promise not to cheat is not credible on its own. Neutral monitors provide information about compliance, increasing the chance that any violation will be detected and punished. This raises the costs of cheating and makes commitments to uphold the peace treaty more credible. Without monitors, the commitment problem is severe.

Question 11

Country A and Country B are in a dispute. Country A is unsure of Country B's military resolve. Simultaneously, Country A is also uncertain about whether its key ally, Country C, will intervene in a potential war. This two-level uncertainty affects bargaining primarily by:

  1. guaranteeing a commitment problem, as Country C's promise to intervene is not credible.
  2. creating an indivisible issue out of the alliance relationship itself.
  3. making it difficult to estimate the distribution of power, thus widening the range of disagreement about the likely outcome of war. (correct answer)
  4. forcing Country A to make a preemptive attack to resolve the uncertainty before the situation changes.
Explanation: The core of an information problem in the bargaining model is disagreement about the likely outcome of war (the value of 'p'). This uncertainty about Country C's intervention directly affects the calculation of the balance of power. From Country A's perspective, the probability of victory could be high (if C intervenes) or low (if C stays out). This makes it very hard for Country A and Country B to agree on the expected outcome of a war, which in turn makes it much harder for them to find a common bargaining range for a peaceful settlement. The commitment problem with C (A) is real, but its direct effect on the A-B bargain is informational.

Question 12

A declining power, Country A, observes that a rising power, Country B, is rapidly expanding its naval capabilities. Country B proposes a long-term treaty that respects current territorial boundaries and offers economic concessions to Country A. Despite the treaty's terms being more favorable to Country A than the expected outcome of a war fought today, Country A launches an attack on Country B's naval shipyards. This decision is best explained by which failure in bargaining?

  1. An information problem, as Country A likely has private intelligence suggesting Country B's military is weaker than it appears.
  2. A commitment problem, as Country A fears Country B will use its future superior power to renege on the treaty and demand greater concessions. (correct answer)
  3. An issue of indivisibility, because the control of key sea lanes cannot be shared and must be held exclusively by one power.
  4. A miscalculation of resolve, where Country A incorrectly believed that Country B would capitulate to its demands without a fight.
Explanation: This is a classic example of a preventive war driven by a commitment problem. The core issue is not the current terms of the deal but the credibility of Country B's commitment to uphold those terms in the future when the balance of power has shifted in its favor. The rising power (Country B) cannot credibly commit not to exploit its future strength, leading the declining power (Country A) to prefer a costly war now to a disadvantageous peace later.

Question 13

A democratic state's leader is attempting to demonstrate resolve during an international crisis. According to bargaining theories that emphasize costly signaling, which of the following actions would be the least effective way to credibly communicate the state's intentions to an adversary?

  1. Giving a fiery speech in a closed-door legislative session, stating that the nation must be prepared for war. (correct answer)
  2. Mobilizing a large number of army reserve units, which involves significant economic disruption and expenditure.
  3. Signing a formal alliance with a third party that includes a mutual-defense clause related to the disputed territory.
  4. Deploying a naval carrier group to the contested waters, increasing the chance of an accidental clash that could escalate.
Explanation: Costly signals are credible because they are costly to send, meaning a state with low resolve would be unwilling to pay the price. Mobilizing reserves (B) has high economic costs. Signing an alliance (C) creates audience costs and ties the state's reputation to its actions. Brinkmanship, like deploying a naval group (D), incurs a risk of accidental war. A speech given in a private session (A) is an example of 'cheap talk.' It has no significant cost or risk and can be made by a leader regardless of their true intentions, thus it lacks credibility as a signal.

Question 14

State A has a probability pp of winning a war against State B. The value of the disputed good is 1. The costs of war for State A are cAc_A and for State B are cBc_B. The bargaining range, representing the set of negotiated outcomes that both sides prefer to war, is defined by which interval?

  1. The interval from p−cBp - c_B to p+cAp + c_A
  2. The single point pp, which is the expected outcome of the war
  3. The interval from p−cAp - c_A to p+cBp + c_B (correct answer)
  4. The entire interval from 00 to 11
Explanation: The bargaining range is the set of deals that both states prefer to the lottery of war. State A's expected value from war is its probability of winning times the value of the good, minus its costs: p−cAp - c_A. This is State A's reservation point; it will not accept any deal less than this. State B's expected value from war is its probability of winning times the value of the good, minus its costs: (1−p)−cB(1-p) - c_B. From State A's perspective, this means State B is willing to give up at most p+cBp + c_B in a settlement. Thus, the range of deals acceptable to both is the interval [p−cA,p+cB][p - c_A, p + c_B].

Question 15

Imagine a scenario where both State A and State B have private information leading each to believe its own military has a unique strategic advantage. Consequently, both sides are highly optimistic about their chances of victory in a potential war. This mutual optimism prevents them from identifying a negotiated settlement that both would prefer to conflict. This failure to reach a bargain is a direct result of:

  1. a commitment problem due to shifting power.
  2. an information problem. (correct answer)
  3. the indivisibility of the disputed issue.
  4. a preemptive war dynamic.
Explanation: This is a classic example of war caused by an information problem. When both sides are mutually optimistic about the outcome of war due to private information, their perceived reservation points diverge. State A thinks it's worth fighting unless it gets a large share of the bargain, and State B thinks the same. This can cause the bargaining range—the set of deals both prefer to war—to vanish. The war itself then becomes a costly process of revealing which side's private information was correct.

Question 16

Consider a peace agreement signed between two nations recently at war. The terms require both sides to demilitarize and pull back from a shared border. However, one nation's government is unstable and faces a potential coup from a hardline military faction that opposes the peace deal. For the other nation, this situation primarily creates what kind of obstacle to a lasting peace?

  1. A commitment problem, as the current government cannot credibly guarantee that it or its successors will uphold the agreement in the future. (correct answer)
  2. An information problem, as the nation is uncertain about the true level of popular support for the current government.
  3. An issue of indivisibility, because the hardline faction views the border territory as non-negotiable.
  4. A signaling problem, as the unstable government cannot take costly actions to prove its peaceful intentions without angering the military.
Explanation: When analyzing obstacles to peace agreements, you need to distinguish between different types of barriers that can prevent lasting cooperation between former adversaries. This scenario illustrates a commitment problem - one of the most fundamental challenges in international relations. The issue isn't what the current government wants to do, but whether it can make a believable promise about future behavior. Even if today's leadership genuinely supports peace, the threat of a military coup means they cannot credibly guarantee the agreement will be honored tomorrow. The other nation knows this uncertainty makes the peace deal fragile, regardless of current intentions. Let's examine why the other options miss the mark. Option B describes an information problem, but the uncertainty here isn't about popular support levels - it's about whether any agreement will stick given the coup threat. Option C involves indivisibility, where resources cannot be shared or divided, but the scenario describes successful negotiations over border demilitarization, suggesting the territory issue was already resolved. Option D focuses on signaling problems, where actors struggle to communicate their true intentions, but the current government's peaceful intentions are clear - the problem is their inability to guarantee those intentions will persist. The correct answer is A because commitment problems arise when actors cannot make credible promises about future compliance, even when they have current goodwill. Study tip: In peace agreement questions, ask yourself: "Is this about not knowing what someone wants (information), not being able to prove what they want (signaling), not being able to divide something (indivisibility), or not being able to promise future behavior (commitment)?"

Question 17

In a territorial dispute, a state's leader makes a public, televised address declaring that 'not one inch of our sacred soil will be relinquished.' Within the bargaining framework, what is the primary purpose of making such a statement public rather than communicating it privately?

  1. To inform the domestic population about the government's foreign policy and ensure national unity.
  2. To satisfy the demands of an international organization that requires public declarations of intent.
  3. To intentionally make the issue indivisible, thereby removing the possibility of a negotiated settlement.
  4. To generate audience costs, making it politically painful for the leader to back down later and thus signaling high resolve. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of audience costs in international relations bargaining theory. When you encounter questions about public vs. private diplomatic communications, think about how making statements public changes the strategic dynamics between negotiating parties. The correct answer is D because public declarations create audience costs - domestic political penalties a leader faces if they later contradict their public position. By declaring "not one inch" on television, the leader deliberately raises the stakes for themselves. If they later compromise, they'll face domestic backlash for appearing weak or dishonest. This self-imposed constraint actually strengthens their bargaining position because it credibly signals to the opponent that backing down would be extremely costly, making their threat more believable. A is incorrect because while public statements do inform citizens, this explanation misses the strategic bargaining purpose. The primary goal isn't unity but credible signaling to the opponent. B is wrong because international organizations don't typically require public territorial declarations, and this doesn't explain why public communication would be strategically preferable to private channels. C incorrectly suggests the leader wants to eliminate negotiated solutions entirely. Actually, audience costs can facilitate negotiations by making commitments more credible - opponents know the leader's resolve is genuine because retreat carries high domestic costs. Study tip: Remember that in IR bargaining theory, constraints can paradoxically increase power. When you see questions about public vs. private diplomatic communication, ask yourself: "How does going public change the domestic political costs for the leader?" This will often point you toward audience costs as the answer.

Question 18

Country A and Country B are in a dispute. Country A is unsure of Country B's military resolve. Simultaneously, Country A is also uncertain about whether its key ally, Country C, will intervene in a potential war. This two-level uncertainty affects bargaining primarily by:

  1. guaranteeing a commitment problem, as Country C's promise to intervene is not credible.
  2. creating an indivisible issue out of the alliance relationship itself.
  3. making it difficult to estimate the distribution of power, thus widening the range of disagreement about the likely outcome of war. (correct answer)
  4. forcing Country A to make a preemptive attack to resolve the uncertainty before the situation changes.
Explanation: The core of an information problem in the bargaining model is disagreement about the likely outcome of war (the value of 'p'). This uncertainty about Country C's intervention directly affects the calculation of the balance of power. From Country A's perspective, the probability of victory could be high (if C intervenes) or low (if C stays out). This makes it very hard for Country A and Country B to agree on the expected outcome of a war, which in turn makes it much harder for them to find a common bargaining range for a peaceful settlement. The commitment problem with C (A) is real, but its direct effect on the A-B bargain is informational.

Question 19

The bargaining model of war posits that because war is costly, there should always be a peaceful settlement that is preferable to fighting. Nevertheless, wars happen. The model explains this paradox by arguing that war is a consequence of:

  1. the irrational passions of state leaders and the public that override rational calculation.
  2. the anarchic nature of the international system, which makes all states inherently aggressive.
  3. a failure of diplomacy and communication between states during a crisis.
  4. specific bargaining failures such as informational asymmetries and credibility problems. (correct answer)
Explanation: While factors like anarchy (B) create the conditions for war and failed diplomacy (C) is a proximate cause, the core theoretical explanation within the bargaining model is that war results from specific, identifiable failures in the bargaining process. The model assumes rationality and seeks to explain war as a product of rational, strategic interaction under certain difficult conditions. These conditions are primarily categorized as information problems (not knowing an opponent's strength/resolve) and commitment problems (inability to trust future promises), which prevent states from reaching the mutually preferable peaceful settlement that theory suggests should exist.

Question 20

Two states are bargaining over a territory valued at 100 units. State A has a 60% probability of winning a war. The costs of war would be 15 units for State A and 15 units for State B. What is the total bargaining surplus that the two states can gain by reaching a peaceful settlement instead of going to war?

  1. 15 units
  2. 70 units
  3. 60 units
  4. 30 units (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter bargaining problems in international relations, you're analyzing the bargaining surplus — the total value both parties can gain by avoiding conflict. This concept helps explain why states often negotiate rather than fight. To find the bargaining surplus, you need to compare what each state expects from war versus peace. State A has a 60% chance of winning the territory (worth 100 units) but faces 15 units in war costs. State A's expected value from war is: 0.6×100−15=60−15=450.6 \times 100 - 15 = 60 - 15 = 45 units. State B has a 40% chance of winning but also pays 15 units in costs, so its expected value is: 0.4×100−15=40−15=250.4 \times 100 - 15 = 40 - 15 = 25 units. The total expected value from war for both states combined is 45+25=7045 + 25 = 70 units. However, the territory itself is worth 100 units total. The bargaining surplus is the difference: 100−70=30100 - 70 = 30 units. This represents the value "destroyed" by war costs that peaceful negotiation can preserve. Answer choice (A) 15 units incorrectly represents just one state's war costs. Choice (B) 70 units is the trap of using the combined expected war payoffs instead of recognizing these represent a loss compared to the territory's full value. Choice (C) 60 units mistakenly uses only State A's expected war payoff. Study tip: Remember that bargaining surplus equals the total value at stake minus what both parties expect from conflict. War costs reduce what everyone gains, creating room for mutually beneficial deals.