Although signaling is the essence of diplomacy, it has often been overlooked in previous studies on international crises. In fact, whether states in a dyad escalate disputes to the brink of war or seek conflict resolution, both sides of a crisis use these forms of signaling to convey their intended messages and possible responses. However, in most of these dyadic international conflicts, the patterns of signaling motives are not identified. In this article, it is argued that signaling decisions depend on the interaction of contextual dimensions, perceived threats, and the status disparity facing the states in a dyad. By analyzing both the signaling and the counter-signaling of nations in dyadic interactions, an alternative insight is offered into why the Korean War turned out to be inevitable.
The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 24(2), 209-224