Exit Costs and Conflict Dynamics: Lessons from the Third Cod War
Author
Gräfin Von Korff, Aika Maria
Term
4. semester
Education
Publication year
2024
Submitted on
2024-05-31
Pages
60
Abstract
This thesis explores how exit costs—what it would cost a state to walk away from a dispute—shape whether a target state accepts a challenger’s demands. It focuses on the Third Cod War between the United Kingdom and Iceland and tests Mark J. C. Crescenzi’s exit model by tracing the steps behind the UK’s decisions. Using qualitative process-tracing (a detailed, step-by-step reconstruction of how decisions were made) in a least-likely case, the study analyzes policy discussions and official documents from the UK Parliament, together with academic articles and historical reviews. These sources are triangulated, meaning the evidence is cross-checked to strengthen reliability. The study finds that, although the UK considered economic exit costs, they were not the main driver of compliance. As the perceived economic value of the issue declined over time, the UK’s exit cost threshold—the level of cost it was willing to bear before giving in—also fell. At the same time, wider geopolitical and strategic concerns, including the risk of diplomatic fallout and pressures on NATO cohesion, became decisive. The results are consistent with Crescenzi’s model: compliance reflects a comparison between exit costs and the exit cost threshold. However, the case also highlights important non-economic factors not fully captured in the original model, indicating the need for a broader framework to explain state compliance in low-level conflicts. The findings deepen understanding of state behavior in such disputes and suggest ways to update the exit model for today’s more complex interdependence.
Afhandlingen undersøger, hvordan exit-omkostninger—hvad det koster en stat at trække sig fra en konflikt—påvirker, om en målstat efterkommer en udfordrerstats krav. Fokus er den tredje torskekrig mellem Storbritannien og Island, og Mark J. C. Crescenzis exitmodel testes ved at følge de konkrete beslutningsskridt i den britiske proces. Studiet anvender kvalitativ proces-tracing (en detaljeret, trinvis rekonstruktion af beslutningsforløbet) i en mindst sandsynlig case og analyserer politiske drøftelser og officielle dokumenter fra det britiske parlament sammen med akademiske artikler og historiske gennemgange. Kilderne trianguleres, dvs. krydstjekkes, for at styrke pålidelighed og gyldighed. Resultaterne viser, at økonomiske exit-omkostninger blev overvejet, men ikke var den vigtigste årsag til eftergivenhed. I takt med at den økonomiske værdi af spørgsmålet faldt, sank også tærsklen for, hvilke exit-omkostninger Storbritannien ville acceptere, før det gav sig. Samtidig blev bredere geopolitiske og strategiske hensyn, herunder risikoen for diplomatisk tilbageslag og belastning af NATOs sammenhængskraft, afgørende. Fundene er forenelige med Crescenzis model: efterlevelse afhænger af forholdet mellem exit-omkostninger og tærsklen for at acceptere dem. Samtidig peger casen på væsentlige ikke-økonomiske faktorer, der ikke er fuldt indarbejdet i den oprindelige model, og indikerer behov for en mere omfattende ramme til at forklare statsadfærd i lavintensive konflikter. Studiet bidrager til en dybere forståelse af sådanne konflikter og peger på, hvordan exitmodellen kan opdateres i lyset af nutidens mere komplekse indbyrdes afhængighed.
[This apstract has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]
Keywords