HOLDING HANDS WHILE PARTING WAYS: EXAMINING ALLIANCE TREATY RENEGOTIATION

This study investigates the renegotiation of security alliances, specifically the structural conditions surrounding their revision. Although the field of international relations offers a rich discussion of the formation and violation of alliance treaties, few scholars have addressed the reasons why alliance members amend security obligations. After the formation of an alliance, a member may become dissatisfied owing to changes in the external and domestic security environments. A failure to address this discontent increases the risk of alliance breakdown. Members manage their alliance relationship through a negotiation process or intra-alliance bargaining in the search for a new arrangement that can endure. Factors that help to show commitment to the alliance and communicate a set of feasible solutions are crucial if members are to find a mutually acceptable arrangement. By taking these factors into account, allies are more likely to revise an existing treaty. Examining a set of bilateral alliances dating from 1945 to 2001, this research demonstrates that public requests for renegotiation compel allies to change the status quo. It is found that alliance-related fixed assets and the formation of external alliances increase the likelihood of treaty revision, though institutionalization of an alliance does not help to resolve interest divergence. In addition, this study examines the strategy of delay in intra-alliance bargaining. Allies may postpone a dispute by ignoring it while working to maintain the alliance. Tension among allies thus increases, but the alliance endures. I examine three alliances in order to illustrate this renegotiation process. Among these, the Anglo-Japanese alliance demonstrates two successful renegotiations that prolonged a wavering alliance relationship; the Sino-Soviet alliance is an example of failure owing to the lack of substantive cooperation; and the US-Taiwan alliance during the 1970s demonstrates successful use of a strategy of delay that appeases a dissatisfied member.

Interactive Effects of Plant Species and Organic Carbon on Nitrate Removal in Chesapeake Bay Treatment Wetlands

Nitrate from agricultural runoff are a significant cause of algal blooms in estuarine ecosystems such as the Chesapeake Bay. These blooms block sunlight vital to submerged aquatic vegetation, leading to hypoxic areas. Natural and constructed wetlands have been shown to reduce the amount of nitrate flowing into adjacent bodies of water. We tested three wetland plant species native to Maryland, Typha latifolia (cattail), Panicum virgatum (switchgrass), and Schoenoplectus validus (soft-stem bulrush), in wetland microcosms to determine the effect of species combination and organic amendment on nitrate removal. In the first phase of our study, we found that microcosms containing sawdust exhibited significantly greater nitrate removal than microcosms amended with glucose or hay at a low nitrate loading rate. In the second phase of our study, we confirmed that combining these plants removed nitrate, although no one combination was significantly better. Furthermore, the above-ground biomass of microcosms containing switchgrass had a significantly greater percentage of carbon than microcosms without switchgrass, which can be studied for potential biofuel use. Based on our data, future environmental groups can make a more informed decision when choosing biofuel-capable plant species for artificial wetlands native to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.