Why do some near crises tip over into full-blown crisis and others do not? This paper considers existing scholarship and identifies four key barriers to using quantitative analysis for tipping-point analyses: strategic indeterminacy; the incentives for conflict parties to avoid inefficiencies; the paucity of cases; and the availability of quality data. Due to these challenges, many do not perform well as immediate causes for crisis escalation. We also argue and demonstrate through two quantitative models of crisis escalation that some variables, particularly related to domestic politics, can do well in explaining why some disputes tip into crisis and others do not. As we illustrate with reference to the 1995–1996 Third Taiwan Straits Crisis, qualitative approaches that analyze the processes by which leaders and foreign policy institutions make decisions add needed explanatory power to purely quantitative models of the potential for near crises to tip into crisis.

中文翻译：

---

引爆点：分析国际危机升级的挑战

为什么一些近在咫尺的危机会演变成全面危机，而另一些则不会？本文考虑了现有的学术研究，并确定了使用定量分析进行临界点分析的四个主要障碍：战略不确定性；冲突各方避免效率低下的激励措施；病例少；以及质量数据的可用性。由于这些挑战，许多问题表现不佳，成为危机升级的直接原因。我们还通过两个危机升级的定量模型论证和证明，一些变量，特别是与国内政治相关的变量，可以很好地解释为什么一些争端会引发危机，而另一些则不会。正如我们参考 1995-1996 年第三次台海危机所说明的那样，