Years Of Rivalry Research Articles

The War is Over

After years of rivalry between DSRC and C-V2X, Jack Roper discovers that ‘multilingual’ connected-vehicle communication units are now being deployed, meaning the two technologies can start to work together

Control the issues, control the conflict: The effects of alliances that settle territorial issues on interstate rivalries

Research has shown that a large number of interstate disputes frequently occur between the same pairs of states and that these rivalries tend to include wars more often than not. This article examines whether states involved in rivalry can take steps to manage disputed issues and decrease the probability of the rivalry escalating to war. The analyses presented here suggest that states can and do take steps to manage their disputes. It is shown that certain alliance commitments are actually attempts to manage conflict between rival states by removing territorial issues from their agendas. These territorial settlement treaties fundamentally change the nature of the rivalry by changing the issues of contention. Once this occurs, the nature of future disputes is altered and the probability of repeated disputes decreases. Even in enduring rivalries, rivals that have formed prior territorial settlements experience much less conflict than other rivals. Lastly, it is also shown that major‐major, enduring rivalries with prior territorial settlements take much longer before going to war—they will suffer through twice as many disputes and four times as many years of rivalry before going to war than other enduring rivals. Methodologically, this paper utilitizes the “rivalry approach” recently advocated by Goertz and Diehl (1996) in addition to the more familiar cross‐sectional, dyad‐year approach. The use of the rivalry approach is believed to be especially warranted considering this issue's focus upon rivalry termination. Traditional cross‐sectional approaches often obscure dynamic relationships that exist between rivals and ignore fundamental changes that occur over time. Obviously, the termination of the rivalry is just such a fundamental change and cannot occur without prior shifts in the rivalry relationship. Therefore, rivalry termination should provide excellent testing ground for this new approach.

Thomas Betterton and the Management of Lincoln's Inn Fields, 1695-1708.

This thoroughly new investigation into the theatre management competition between the Drury Lane and Lincoln s Inn Fields companies revises the established view of Thomas Betterton s management abilities by documenting the fact that his competition with the Drury Lane company made both an immediate and a permanent change in the course of British drama.Judith Milhous s meticulous investigation of an astonishing range of reference which includes unpublished and partially published documents in the Public Record Office of London, The British Library, and the Harvard Theatre Collection allows her to present a fresh assessment of the chaotic events of the 1695 1708 period and of the competence of Thomas Betterton as manager of Lincoln s Inn Fields theatre.The breakaway of Betterton and some of the older actors from Drury Lane in 1695, the flood of new plays at the turn of the century, the rivalry between the new acting company at Lincoln s Inn Fields and Drury Lane, and the resulting competition for the playgoers attention spawned an extravaganza of singers, jugglers, animal acts, and double bills. Despite great difficulties, Milhous shows, Betterton was able to bring about an accommodation that permitted the two acting companies to enjoy a period of modest prosperity and to exert a continuing influence on English drama and the organization of theatrical production.This careful study of shifts, devices, and the fortunes of the years of rivalry between acting companies provides students of English theatre history and drama with invaluable new insights into the practical factors that influenced the history of drama.

Philosophia Regina

Mr. Chairman, President Fred, President Starck, ladies and gentlemen of the Modern Language Association: I suppose on this occasion, as a member of the American Philological Association, I should be tempted to reflect upon the event in the year of the great schism, 1883, when forty youthful modern linguists, smarting under the tyranny of classical philology, struck their historic blow for freedom, and formed the Modern Language Association. Suffice it to say that after years of rivalry, we have all come to the realization that we are allies in a common cause, not only within the conventional humanities but also with our colleagues in the other areas of learning. No doubt the sense of kinship between classicists and scholars in the modern foreign languages has been enhanced by the experience of adversity. Certainly a classicist has had to learn to live with, and ultimately profit from, a perpetual “bear” market. But, happily, in recent years, the whole strategy of fighting defensive rear-guard actions has been abandoned, and a new spirit of confidence has appeared. A case in point is William R. Parker's excellent piece entitled “Why a Foreign Language Requirement?” There are also the many classicists who have sworn a mighty oath never again to utter a word of apology for the classics, but rather to start from the assumption that any intelligent and sensible man knows how important they are.

The Labor Merger

When the AFL-CIO merger agreement was finally signed, on February 9 at Miami Beach, it had some of the impact of a surprise. And yet nothing of importance has stood in the way of the merger for at least two years past. Twenty years ago, when the CIO first broke off from the AFL, the two labor bodies fought bitterly. But both federations have changed during their twenty years of rivalry. Now at the end, their differences are minor. This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.