Contentious issues are important sources of militarized conflict. This article advances an issue-based approach to world politics, focusing on disagreements over territory, maritime zones, and cross-border rivers. We characterize militarized conflict and peaceful techniques as substitutable foreign policy tools that states can adopt to resolve disagreements over issues, and we present hypotheses to account for issue management based on issue salience and recent interaction over the same issue. Empirical analyses reveal that states are more likely to use both militarized conflict and peaceful methods when the issue at stake is more salient, both when the general issue type is considered more salient and when the specific issue under contention has greater within-issue salience. Recent issue management also plays an important role, as histories of both militarized conflict and failed peaceful settlements increase pressure to take further action to settle the issue.
Andersen, Pelle, Justin Baumgardner, ,J. Michael Greig, and Paul F. Diehl.2001. Turning down the heat: Influences on conflict management in enduring rivalries . International Interactions27:239-74.
2.
Bercovitch, Jacob, and Paul F. Diehl .1997. Conflict management of enduring rivalries: The frequency, timing, and short-term impact of mediation. International Interactions22:299-320.
3.
Brecher, Michael, and Jonathan Wilkenfeld .1997. A study of crisis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
4.
Colaresi, Michael P., and William R. Thompson .2002. Hot spots or hot hands? Serial crisis behavior, escalating risks, and rivalry. Journal of Politics64:1175-98.
5.
Diehl, Paul F.1992. What are they fighting for? The importance of issues in international conflict research. Journal of Peace Research29:333-44.
6.
Diehl, Paul F., and Gary Goertz.2000. War and peace in international rivalry . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Dixon, William J.1993. Democracy and the management of international conflict . Journal of Conflict Resolution37:42-68.
8.
———. 1994. Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict. American Political Science Review88:14-32.
9.
Ghosn, Faten, Glenn Palmer, and Stuart Bremer.2004. The MID 3 data set, 1993-2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science21:133-54.
10.
Greig, J. Michael.2001. Moments of opportunity: Recognizing conditions of ripeness for international mediation between enduring rivals. Journal of Conflict Resolution45:691-718.
11.
Hansen, Holley, Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, and Stephen C. Nemeth . Forthcoming. Mediating interstate conflicts: Regional vs. global international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution52.
12.
Hensel, Paul R.1996. Charting a course to conflict: Territorial issues and militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science15:43-73.
13.
———. 1999. An evolutionary approach to the study of interstate rivalry . Conflict Management and Peace Science17:175-206.
14.
———. 2001. Contentious issues and world politics: The management of territorial claims in the Americas, 1816-1992. International Studies Quarterly45:81-109.
15.
Hensel, Paul R., and Sara McLaughlin Mitchell.2005. Issue indivisibility and territorial claims. GeoJournal64:275-85.
16.
Hensel, Paul R., Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, and Thomas E. Sowers II.2006. Conflict management of riparian disputes: A regional comparison of dispute resolution. Political Geography25:383-411.
17.
Holsti, Kalevi J.1991. Peace and war: Armed conflicts and international order, 1648-1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Huth, Paul K., and Todd Allee.2002. The democratic peace and territorial conflict in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Kugler, Jacek, and Douglas Lemke, eds. 1996. Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of ``The War Ledger.'' Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
20.
Lasswell, Harold J., and Abraham Kaplan.1950. Power and society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
Leng, Russell J.1983. When will they ever learn? Coercive bargaining in recurrent crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution27:379-419.
22.
Mansbach, Richard, and John Vasquez.1981. In search of theory: A new paradigm for global politics . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
23.
Maslow, Abraham H.1970. Motivation and personality. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Harper Collins .
24.
Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin.2002. A Kantian system? Democracy and third party conflict resolution . American Journal of Political Science46:749-59.
25.
Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, and Brandon C. Prins .1999. Beyond territorial contiguity: Issues at stake in democratic militarized interstate disputes. International Studies Quarterly3:169-83.
26.
Most, Benjamin A., and Harvey Starr.1993. Inquiry, logic and international politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
27.
Nemeth, Stephen C., Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Elizabeth A. Nyman, and Paul R. Hensel .2007. UNCLOS, EEZs, and the management of maritime claims. Working paper.
28.
O'Leary, Michael.1976. The role of issues. In James Rosenau, ed., In search of global patterns. New York, NY: Free Press, 318-25.
29.
Organski, A.F.K., and Jacek Kugler.1980. The war ledger. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Potter, William C.1980. Issue area and foreign policy analysis. International Organization34:405-427.
31.
Prescott, J.R.V.1987. Political frontiers and boundaries. London: Unwin Hyman.
32.
Randle, Robert.1987. Issues in the history of international relations. New York, NY: Praeger.
33.
Raymond, Gregory A.1994. Democracies, disputes, and third party intermediaries . Journal of Conflict Resolution38:24-42.
34.
Reinhardt, Eric.2001. Adjudication without enforcement in GATT disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution45:174-95.
35.
Rosenau, James N.1971. Pre-theories and theories of foreign policy. In James N. Rosenau (ed.), The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York, NY: Free Press.
36.
Russett, Bruce, and John R. Oneal .2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
37.
Senese, Paul D.2005. Territory, contiguity, and international conflict: Assessing a new joint explanation. American Journal of Political Science49:769-79.
38.
Singer, J. David.1988. Reconstructing the correlates of war data set on material capabilities of states, 1816-1985. International Interactions14:115-32.
39.
Vasquez, John A.1993. The war puzzle. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Vasquez, John A., and Marie T. Henehan .2001. Territorial disputes and the probability of war, 1816-1992. Journal of Peace Research38:123-38.
41.
Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, and Michael Brecher .1984. International crises, 1945-1975: The UN dimension. International Studies Quarterly28:45-67.
42.
Zacher, Mark W.2001. The territorial integrity norm: International boundaries and the use of force. International Organization55:215-50.
43.
Zartman, William.1989. Ripe for resolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
