Why do some international crises escalate into violence while others do not? I argue that an understanding of crisis behavior necessitates awareness of the processes preceding a crisis and propose two mechanisms that link precrisis hostility with crisis violence. The population fatigue mechanism suggests that precrisis hostility interrupts the everyday life of a population, strengthening its demand for a harsher response. If leaders behave with restraint during a crisis and after the crisis hostilities resume, leaders risk facing greater dissatisfaction from their now even more fatigued population. The baseline for resolve mechanism suggests that if states are actively hostile before a crisis, they must maintain hostility during a crisis to credibly demonstrate resolve. Findings on international crises between 1918 and 2010 support the interphase relationship: a crisis escalation is significantly more likely after a hostile precrisis period. The behavior of opponents can indicate how crises might unfold even before they begin.

中文翻译：

---

危机前的军事敌对和国际危机中的升级

为什么有些国际危机升级为暴力，而另一些却没有呢？我认为，对危机行为的理解需要认识到危机之前的过程，并提出将危机前敌意与危机暴力联系起来的两种机制。人口疲劳机制表明，危机前的敌对情绪打断了人们的日常生活，增强了人们对更严厉应对措施的需求。如果领导人在危机期间以及危机敌对状态恢复后表现出克制，则领导人面临的风险可能是他们现在更加疲倦的人口面临更大的不满。解决机制的基准表明，如果国家在危机之前积极敌对，他们必须在危机期间保持敌对状态，以可靠地证明其决心。1918年至2010年间国际危机的调查结果支持了阶段间的关系：在敌对的危机前时期，危机升级的可能性更大。对手的行为可以表明危机在危机开始之前可能如何发展。