부산대학교 도서관

From the perspectives of both theory and practice, perceived reliability is often assumed to be integral to strategic considerations vis-a-vis the formation and management of alliances. It not only significantly shapes the credibility of alliance commitment, but also looms large in the context of extended and immediate deterrence between a state's allies and adversaries. However, no systematic theorization of perceived reliability has been accomplished in the existing literature so far. To bridge this apparent gap, this D.Phil thesis is aimed at shedding light on a crucial question: How do states come to judge if their alliance partners are reliable? Specifically, it seeks to uncover the psychological mechanisms through which leaders assess each other's re- liability. Drawing upon insights from three existing approaches regarding intention assessments, this thesis sets out to develop two competing theories of alliance reliability judgment: The Rational Choice Model (RCM) and the Affective Reasoning Model (ARM). Then, it comparatively tests the propositions derived from both models by examining the histories of three Asia-Pacific alliances during the Cold War: (1) The Sino-Soviet alliance from 1949 to 1969, (2) the US-ROC alliance from 1949 to 1975, and (3) the US-Japan alliance from 1945 to 1987. The findings of the thesis can potentially contribute to on-going scholarly discussions in the areas of threat perception, strategic deterrence and alliance theories. In terms of policy implications, this thesis is particularly relevant to intra-alliance communication and alliance management.