Draft:Treaty Nesting
| Submission declined on 30 June 2024 by SafariScribe (talk). Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Treaty nesting is a term coined by John P. Willerton, Gary Goertz, and Michael Slobodchikoff to describe when previous treaties are explicitly referenced in a treaty.[1][2][3][4] This is important because it challenges traditional views that each treaty is a separate agreement. In fact, treaties are linked together through treaty nesting. In using network analysis, it is possible to visualize how each of the treaties is tied to previous treaties as well as determine which treaties are most important to a relationship because they are most central. Using network analysis provides a way of measuring the effectiveness of a bilateral or multilateral relationship, or even the structure of the relationship, often referred to as a treaty network.[5][6] Slobodchikoff has also argued that the more nesting there is in a relationship, the less likely there is to be armed conflict between two countries[1] and also determined a state’s preference for maintaining or revising the global order.[7][8]
References
[edit]- ^ a b Slobodchikoff, Michael O. (2013-04-18). Strategic Cooperation: Overcoming the Barriers of Global Anarchy. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-7881-2.
- ^ Slobodchikoff, Michael O. (2014-10-24). Building Hegemonic Order Russia's Way: Order, Stability, and Predictability in the Post-Soviet Space. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-8577-3.
- ^ Willerton, John P.; Goertz, Gary; Slobodchikoff, Michael O. (March 2015). "Mistrust and hegemony: Regional institutional design, the FSU-CIS, and Russia". International Area Studies Review. 18 (1): 26–52. doi:10.1177/2233865914562256. ISSN 2233-8659.
- ^ Willerton, John P; Slobodchikoff, Michael O; Goertz, Gary (March 2012). "Treaty networks, nesting, and interstate cooperation: Russia, the FSU, and the CIS". International Area Studies Review. 15 (1): 59–82. doi:10.1177/2233865912437121. ISSN 2233-8659.
- ^ Ambrosio, Thomas (2017-01-02). "The Architecture of Alignment: The Russia–China Relationship and International Agreements". Europe-Asia Studies. 69 (1): 110–156. doi:10.1080/09668136.2016.1273318. ISSN 0966-8136.
- ^ Ambrosio, Thomas; Lange, William A. (September 2016). "The architecture of annexation? Russia's bilateral agreements with South Ossetia and Abkhazia". Nationalities Papers. 44 (5): 673–693. doi:10.1080/00905992.2016.1203300. ISSN 0090-5992.
- ^ Slobodchikoff, Michael O. (2017-01-11). "Challenging US Hegemony: The Ukrainian Crisis and Russian Regional Order". The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review. 44 (1): 76–95. doi:10.1163/18763324-04401006. ISSN 1876-3324.
- ^ Slobodchikoff, Michael; Tandon, Aakriti A. (2022-12-13). India as Kingmaker: Status Quo Or Revisionist Power. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-05566-1.