Skip to main content
Log in

‘The friend of my enemy is my enemy’: Modeling triadic internation relationships

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The evolution of internation relationships is studied by means of a mathematical model based on a popular rule of triadic interaction: “the friend of my friend is my friend, the friend of my enemy is my enemy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my enemy”. The rule is shown to lead to the formation and preservation of unipolar and bipolar configurations of nations, with the strengths of relationships, both friendly and conflictual, intensifying through time. These results confirm speculations originally made in static, graph theoretic studies of the balancing of relationships within individuals, small groups and systems of nations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashley, Richard K.: 1980,The Political Economy of War and Peace: The Sino-Soviet-American Triangle and the Modern Security Problematique, Frances Pinter, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Dorwin and Frank Harary: 1956, ‘Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider's Theory’,Psychological Review 63, 5, 277–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Dorwin and Frank Harary: 1960, ‘A Note on Freud's “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes”’,International Journal of Psychoanalysis 40, 287–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flament, Claude: 1963,Applications of Graph Theory to Group Structure, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Joshua S. and John R. Freeman: 1990,The Three-Way Street: Strategic Reciprocity in World Politics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossmann, Siegfried and Gottfried Mayer-Kress: 1989, ‘Chaos in the International Arms Race’,Nature 337, 701–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harary, Frank: 1959, ‘On the Measurement of Structural Balance’,Behavioral Science 2, 4, 316–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harary, Frank: 1961, ‘A Structural Analysis of the Situation in the Middle East in 1956’,Journal of Conflict Resolution 5, 2, 167–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, Jeffrey: 1974, ‘Symmetry and Polarization in the European International System, 1870–1879: A Methodological Study’,Journal of Peace Research XI, 3, 229–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, Brian and Arthur Stein: 1973, ‘The Balance of Power in International History: Theory and Reality’,Journal of Conflict Resolution 17, 1, 33–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F.: 1946, ‘Attitudes and Cognitive Organizations’,Journal of Psychology 21, 107–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, Morton A.: 1957,System and Process in International Politics, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, H. Brooke and Richard Rosecrance: 1985, ‘Alliance and Structural Balance in the International System: A Reinterpretation’,Journal of Conflict Resolution 29, 1, 57–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morissette, J. O.: 1958, ‘An Experimental Study of the Theory of Structural Balance’,Human Relations 11, 239–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Most, Benjamin A. and Harvey Starr: 1983, ‘Conceptualizing War’,Journal of Conflict Resolution 27, 137–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Most, Benjamin A. and Harvey Starr: 1989,Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Lewis F.: 1960,Arms and Insecurity, Boxwood Press, Pittsburgh and Quadrangle Books, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrodt, P. A.: 1978, ‘The RichardsonN-Nation Model and the Balance of Power’,American Journal of Political Science 22, 364–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Theresa Clair: 1980, ‘Arms Race Instability and War’,Journal of Conflict Resolution 24, 2, 253–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth N.: 1964, ‘The Stability of a Bipolar World’,Daedalus 93, 881–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth N.: 1979,Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, D. M.: 1984, ‘Differential Paths to Parity: A Study of the Contemporary Arms Race’,American Political Science Review 78, 297–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wayman, Frank Whelon and T. Clifton Morgan: 1990, ‘Measuring Polarity in the International System’, in J. David Singer and Paul Diehl (eds.),Measuring the Correlates of War, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 139–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinnes, D. A., J. V. Gillespie, and R. M. Rubison: 1976, ‘A Reinterpretation of the Richardson Arms Race Model’, in D. A. Zinnes and J. V. Gillespie (eds.),Mathematical Models in International Relations Research, Praeger, New York, pp. 189–217.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research was funded by a grant from the World Society Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, S.C., Muncaster, R.G. & Zinnes, D.A. ‘The friend of my enemy is my enemy’: Modeling triadic internation relationships. Synthese 100, 333–358 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063907

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063907

Keywords

Navigation