Contemporary Conflict Analysis in Perspective 33Endnotes
1 K Holsti, Ecological and Clausewitzian approaches to the study of war: Assessing
the possibilities, Paper presented at the 30Ih Anniversary Convention of the
International Studies Association, London, 1989.(^2) Forum on Early Warning and Early Response (FEWER), Conflict Analysis and
Response Definition (Abridged) Methodology, London, April 2001. p 7.
< http://www.fewer.org/research/index.htm >
3 T R Cusak, On the theoretical deficit in the study of war, The process of war.
Advancing the scientific study of war, S A Bremer & T R Cusak (eds), Gordon and
Breach Publishers, Amsterdam, 1995. p 191.
4 In this regard see, inter alia, J Vasquez's assessment of quantitative internation-
al relations research in Statistical findings in international politics: A data-based
assessment, International Studies Quarterly, vol 20, no 2, 1976, pp 171-218 as
well as The steps to war: Toward a scientific explanation of correlates of war find-
ings, World Politics, no 40, 1987, pp 108-145. Also K Holsti, op cit, as well as
Mirror, mirror on the wall, which are the fairest theories of all?, International
Studies Quanerly, vol33, no 3, 1989, pp 255-61 and Peace and war: Armed con-
flicts and international order 1648-1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1991.
5 H Morgenthau, Scientific man us power politics, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, p 95 cited in D J. D. Sandole. Capturing the complexity of conflict.
Dealing with violent ethnic conflicts of thepost-cold war era.Pinter, London &.^3 '4 ew
York, 1999, p 7.
6 TO paraphrase the title of a fascinating volume dedicated to the topic. Big Wars.
Little Wars - A Single Theory?, International Interactions, R M Siverson (ed) & M
1 Midlarski (guest ed), vol 16, no 3. 1990.
7 J Levy, Big wars, little wars, and theory construction. ibid, p 219. Yet, as A
Thompson points out, "Many of these analyses offer something missing from the
earlier passing fancies of international relations. Not only are they theoretically
grounded, they are also historically grounded. Indeed, they represent reinterpre-
rations of the past several hundred years of srructural change and the ensuing
disputes among the system's major actors." W R Thompson, The size of war,
structural and geopolitical contexts, and theory huilding/testing. R M. Siverson
(ed) el al, op cit, p 186.
8 In this respect see inter alia the excellent collection of essays on interstate war in
S A Bremer el al, op cit. A good example regarding the causes of interstate war
can be found in J A Vasquez, The warpuzzle, Cambridge Studies in International
Relations. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 1993.
9 T R Gun & M G Marshall with D Khosla, Peace and conflict 2001: A global survey
of armed conflicts, self-determination movements. and democracy, Center ior
lnternational Development and Conflict Management (CIDCM), University of
Maryland, 2000. < http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/peace.htm >
10 These trends and comparisons were constructed from a catalogue of every major
episode of violent conflict from 1946 to 2000. Magnitudes were determined by rat-
ing each conflict on a 10 point scale that takes into account its deaths, dislocations.
and physical damage. Ibid, p 8. c http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/peace.hm >