The power struggle continues, the escalation increases, and preparations are made for a war of
annihilation. The other side must be destroyed. We had opened the door to the other side so many
times and “talked them down once again for good.” But it didn’t help; the fronts hardened.
Interestingly, there is a moment in this phase when you reconsider your position of power. You ask yourself whether it is necessary to escalate the situation again and go to war, and you become afraid of the consequences.
The “window of opportunity” opens the unique possibility of averting war after all and finding a solution. Reason takes over again for a brief phase and allows for reflection. If this phase is not used, war ensues.
Further reading regarding ultima ratio:
Rationality in negotiation: Rationality in negotiation involves making choices that best serve one’s interests. Since negotiation entails interacting with others who may have different goals and preferences, the aim is not just any agreement, but a beneficial one. Negotiating with a rational approach enhances the likelihood of achieving favorable deals and recognizing which offers to reject. However, our inherent decision-making and negotiation tendencies often contain biases that hinder our ability to negotiate effectively and take full advantage of opportunities.1
Context assessment and perception: During this last rational reconsideration of one’s position of power, the evaluation of the context is critical. As well known in the theory of international politics, the structure of the international system (whether bipolar or multipolar) constrains the foreign-policy options that states can pursue.2 The assessment whether the current international landscape supports the decision to engage in the war stage is needed. In a bipolar world, this calculation generally involves ensuring the endorsement of one of the two great powers. In a multipolar world, the evaluation becomes more complex. The final rational decision is challenging because, contrary to realist assumptions, actors’ perceptions do not always align with reality. Combined with the high level of distrust reached on stage 9, parties may fail to recognize when the window of opportunity for the escalation opens, potentially leading them to escalate to a full-scale war instead.3
Rationality and negative bias: At this stage, multiple aggressive moves – whether they be political, rhetorical, economic, or violent – have been made, actions have been taken, casualties may be numerous, and saving face still matters. The continuation of attacks may further hinder the capacity of both sides to run a rational cost-benefit reflection on whether pursuing war is worth it. 4-6
References:
1 Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. 1992. Negotiating rationally: the power and impact
of the negotiator’s frame. Academy of Management Perspectives, 6(3): 42–51.
2 Waltz, K.H. 1979. The theory of international politics. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
3 Larson, S. 1997. Trust and Missed Opportunities in International Relations. Political
Psychology, 18(3): 701–734.
4 Harsanyi, J. C. 1961. On the Rationality Postulates Underlying the Theory of
Cooperative Games. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5(2): 179–196.
5 Hausken, K. 2016. Cost-benefit analysis of war. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 27(4): 454–469.
6 Johnson, Dominic D. P., and Dominic Tierney. 2018. Bad World: The Negativity Bias in
International Politics. International Security. 43(3): 96–140.
Follow us on LinkedIn for more insights.
