International Military Alliances, 1648-2008 - Douglas M. Gibler

The Changing Nature of Military Alliances

Article 21 of the OAS:

The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the

object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of

other measures of force taken by another State, directly

or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial

acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by

force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized.

Article 1 of NATO:

... to settle any international dispute in which they may
be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that
international peace and security and justice are not
endangered, and to refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force.
Similarly, Article 8 of the WEU included specific procedures
for International Court of Justice jurisdiction over disputes as
well as additional measures for mediation among alliance
members.
The emphasis placed on various clauses within the alliance
treaties changed with time. As the cold war rivalry locked into a
virtual stalemate, the alliance organizations began to emphasize
the resolution of disputes, especially territorial disputes, among
their members. After the Soviet Union imploded and the origi-
nal rationale for these alliances ended, most observers expected
these cold war alliances to disband. Instead, NATO and the OAS
repurposed their organizational structures so that each alliance
was responsible for continued maintenance of peace among
their allied states, including the resolution of internal territorial
issues. The defense pact among the WEU states was somewhat
different because it had already provided the underlying basis of

collective defense necessary for the integration of Europe

through what would eventually become the European Union.

The changing nature of alliance goals can sometimes have

dramatic effects. In addition to resolving territorial issues,

alliances also began encouraging the formation of democratic

governments among their members. The organizations, espe-

cially the OAS, provided aid and support to new regimes and

discouraged interference among their democratic govern-

ments. The collective nature of self-defense and the judicial set-

tlement of territorial issues also discouraged the creation of

large armies and increased militarization among alliance mem-

bers. Virtually free of external threats and also free of possible

threats from large land armies, democratic governments were

provided a favorable environment in which they could flourish.

In many ways the territorial settlement goals of the alliances

proved to be better tools for meeting the original needs of the

alliance members.

Table 1 presents changes that were made over time by the

member states of the three large regional alliances. Recall from

Figure 1 that a large percentage of alliance dyads can be found

in these alliances. As the final column of Table 1 shows, approx-

imately 91 percent of all dyads with two democracies are con-

tained in these three alliances. Democratic dyads were not dom-

inant among the original signatories of the alliances, and those

governments that were democracies were also relatively new,

possibly unstable democracies. Of the OAS states, in only three

dyads were both states democratic, but by 2000, a large majority

of states were democratic. For NATO and the WEU, the fledg-

ling democracies were encouraged, and nondemocratic states

that joined the alliances in later years also evolved into

TABLE 1 Jointly Democratic Dyad Years in Selected Regional Organizations, 1900–2000

Jointly democratic Allied jointly democratic

signatories dyad years

Year Name of

signed alliance No. Percent No. Percent

1947 Organization of 3 of 171 1.8 1,696 of 17.8 28.82

American States 9,506

1948 Western 9 of 9 100.0 405 of 449 90.2 6.88

European

Union

1949 North Atlantic 45 of 55 81.8 3,259 of 79.2 55.38

Treaty 4,117

Organization

Totals 57 of 235 24.3 5,360 of 38.1 91.08

14,072

Percentage of

total allied

democratic

dyad years

Source: Douglas M. Gibler, “Alliances That Never Balance: The Territorial Settlement Treaty,” Conflict Management and Peace Science 16, no. 1
(1996): 75–97.
Note: Organization of American States is Alliance no. 4.1333; Western European Union is Alliance no. 4.1339; and North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-
tion is Alliance no. 4.1347.