Previous theory and research have suggested that multiparty disputes might be significantly more likely to escalate to war than bilateral disputes, because of the difficulty of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement as the number of parties increases. This study presents a systematic test of this hypothesis. Efforts to provide such a test have been hampered by the absence of data that distinguish the number of participants in a militarized interstate dispute prior to the outbreak of war from the number of participants after the war breaks out. We find that multiparty disputes do have an increased probability to escalate to war. In addition, we find that the issue over which the disputants contend has an important effect on the probability that the dispute will escalate to war; multiparty disputes that are over territory have a higher probability of escalating to war than multiparty disputes in general. Lastly, it is found that the effects related to the number of parties in a dispute and to whether the dispute is over territory are independent, and one does not eliminate the effect of the other. In order to contribute to future scholarship on this topic, the data for the new classification scheme of multiparty disputes are published in the appendices.
Ben-Yehuda, H.1997. Territoriality, crisis and war: An examination of the theory and 20th century evidence. Paper presented to the International Studies Association, Toronto, 19 March.
2.
Ben-Yehuda, H.2001. Territoriality, crisis and war in the Arab-Israel conflict, 1947-94. The Journal of Conflict Studies21 (Winter): 78-108.
3.
Bennett, D.S.1996. Security, bargaining, and the end of interstate rivalry . International Studies Quarterly40 (June): 157-183.
4.
Brams, S.J., and A.D. Taylor.2002. From cake cutting to dispute resolution . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Brecher, M.1993. Crises in world politics: Theory and reality. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
6.
Brecher, M., and J. Wilkenfeld.1997. A study in crisis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Bremer, S.A.1992. Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816- 1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution36 (June): 309-341.
8.
Bremer, S.A.2000. Who fights whom, when, where and why? In What do we know about war? ed. John Vasquez , pp. 23-36. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
Bremer, S., and T. Cusack. Eds. 1995. The process of war. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.
10.
Burton, J.1990. Conflict: Resolution and provention. London: Macmillan.
11.
Cusack, T.R., and W.D. Eberwein.1982. Prelude to war: Incidence, escalation and intervention in international disputes, 1900-1976. International Interactions9(1): 9-28.
12.
Diehl, P.F., and G. Goertz.2000. War and peace in international rivalry . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13.
Filson, D., and S. Werner.2002. A bargaining model of war and peace: Anticipating the onset, duration, and outcome of war. American Journal of Political Science46(4): 819-837.
14.
Gochman, C.S., and Z. Maoz.1984. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1976 . Journal of Conflict Resolution28 (December): 585-615.
15.
Hensel, P.R.1994. One thing leads to another: Recurrent militarized disputes in Latin America, 1816-1986. Journal of Peace Research31(August): 281-298.
16.
Hensel, P.R.1996. Charting a course to conflict: Territorial issues and interstate conflict, 1816-1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(1): 43-73.
17.
Holsti, K.J.1991. Peace and war: Armed conflicts and international order, 1648-1989. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Institute of International Business Law and Practice.1980. Multiparty business disputes. Paris : ICC Services.
19.
Iriye, A.1987. The origins of the second world war in Asia and the Pacific . London and New York: Longman.
20.
James, P., and J. Wilkenfeld.1984. Structural factors and international crisis behavior. Conflict Management and Peace Science7(2): 33-53.
21.
Jones, D.M., S.A. Bremer, and J.D. Singer.1996. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical applications. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(2): 163-213.
22.
King, G., M. Tomz, and J. Wittenberg.2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44(2): 341-355.
23.
Kriesberg, L.2003. Constructive conflicts: From escalation to resolution , 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
24.
Leeds, B.A.2003. Alliances and the expansion and escalation of militarized interstate disputes. Unpublished Manuscript, Rice University , Houston, TX.
25.
Long, J.S., and J. Freese.2001. Regression models for categorical dependent variables. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
26.
Mansbach, R.W., and J.A. Vasquez.1981. In search of theory: A new paradigm for global politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
27.
Menkel-Meadow, C. Ed. 2001. Mediation. The International Library of Essays in Law and Legal Theory. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
28.
Randle, R.F.1987. Issues in the history of international relations. New York: Praeger.
29.
Raymond, G.2000. International norms: Normative orders and peace. In What do we know about war? ed. John Vasquez, pp. 281-297. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
30.
Richardson, J.L.1994. Crisis diplomacy: The great powers since the mid-nineteenth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Roy, A.B.1997. Intervention across bisecting borders. Journal of Peace Research34(August): 3-14.
32.
Senese, P.D.1996. Geographical proximity and issue salience: Their effects on the escalation of militarized interstate conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(2): 133-161.
33.
Senese, P., and J. Vasquez.2003. A unified explanation of territorial conflict: Testing the impact of sampling bias, 1919-1992. International Studies Quarterly47(June): 275-298.
34.
Simon, H.A.1957. Models of man: Social and rational; mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New York : Wiley.
35.
Small, M., and J.D. Singer.1982. Resort to arms: International and civil wars, 1816-1980. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36.
Smith, A., and A.C. Stam. n.d. Bargaining and the nature of war. Unpublished Manuscript, New York University and Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
37.
Tomz, M., J. Wittenberg, and G. King.1999. Clarify: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Dept. of Government.
38.
Vasquez, J.A.1983. The tangibility of issues and global conflict: A test of Rosenau's issue area typology. Journal of Peace Research20(March): 179-192.
39.
Vasquez, J.A.1993. The war puzzle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Vasquez, J., and M.T. Henehan.2001. Territorial disputes and the probability of war, 1816-1992. Journal of Peace Research38(March): 123-138.
41.
Wagner, R.H.2000. Bargaining and war. American Journal of Political Science44(3): 469-484.
