, Volume 100, Issue 3, pp 333–358 | Cite as

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

  • S. C. Lee
  • R. G. Muncaster
  • D. A. Zinnes


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 These results confirm speculations originally made in static, graph theoretic studies of the balancing of relationships within individuals, small groups and systems of nations.


Mathematical Model Small Group Internation Relationship Popular Rule Triadic Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. Cartwright, Dorwin and Frank Harary: 1956, ‘Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider's Theory’,Psychological Review 63, 5, 277–93.Google Scholar
  3. Cartwright, Dorwin and Frank Harary: 1960, ‘A Note on Freud's “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes”’,International Journal of Psychoanalysis 40, 287–90.Google Scholar
  4. Flament, Claude: 1963,Applications of Graph Theory to Group Structure, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  5. Goldstein, Joshua S. and John R. Freeman: 1990,The Three-Way Street: Strategic Reciprocity in World Politics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Grossmann, Siegfried and Gottfried Mayer-Kress: 1989, ‘Chaos in the International Arms Race’,Nature 337, 701–4.Google Scholar
  7. Harary, Frank: 1959, ‘On the Measurement of Structural Balance’,Behavioral Science 2, 4, 316–23.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Heider, F.: 1946, ‘Attitudes and Cognitive Organizations’,Journal of Psychology 21, 107–12.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, Morton A.: 1957,System and Process in International Politics, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Morissette, J. O.: 1958, ‘An Experimental Study of the Theory of Structural Balance’,Human Relations 11, 239–54.Google Scholar
  15. Most, Benjamin A. and Harvey Starr: 1983, ‘Conceptualizing War’,Journal of Conflict Resolution 27, 137–60.Google Scholar
  16. Most, Benjamin A. and Harvey Starr: 1989,Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.Google Scholar
  17. Richardson, Lewis F.: 1960,Arms and Insecurity, Boxwood Press, Pittsburgh and Quadrangle Books, Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Schrodt, P. A.: 1978, ‘The RichardsonN-Nation Model and the Balance of Power’,American Journal of Political Science 22, 364–90.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, Theresa Clair: 1980, ‘Arms Race Instability and War’,Journal of Conflict Resolution 24, 2, 253–84.Google Scholar
  20. Waltz, Kenneth N.: 1964, ‘The Stability of a Bipolar World’,Daedalus 93, 881–909.Google Scholar
  21. Waltz, Kenneth N.: 1979,Theory of International Politics, Addison-Wesley, Reading.Google Scholar
  22. Ward, D. M.: 1984, ‘Differential Paths to Parity: A Study of the Contemporary Arms Race’,American Political Science Review 78, 297–317.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. C. Lee
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • R. G. Muncaster
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • D. A. Zinnes
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Politics and Society School of Social SciencesUniversity of California-IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Merriam Laboratory for Analytic Political ResearchUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political Science and Merriam Laboratory for Analytic Political ResearchUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations