International relations scholars have garnered a good deal of evidence indicating that binding arbitration and adjudication are highly effective means for brokering agreements and ending conflict. However, binding third-party conflict management is rarely pursued to resolve interstate disputes over contentious issues like territorial or maritime control. While states value the effectiveness of binding procedures, they are reluctant to give up the decision control necessary to submit to arbitration or adjudication. The authors identify three factors that influence the willingness of states to give up decision control: issue salience, availability of outside options, and history of negotiations. An analysis of attempts to settle territorial, maritime, and river claims reveals that disputants are less likely to use binding conflict management when they have a greater need to maintain decision control.
AbbottKenneth O. W.KeohaneRobertMoravcsikAndrewSlaughterAnne-MarieSnidalDuncan. 2010. “The Concept of Legalization.”International Organization54 (3): 401–19.
2.
AlleeTodd L.HuthPaul K.. 2006. “Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover.”American Political Science Review100 (2): 219–34.
3.
AlleeToddPeinhardtClint. 2010. “Delegating Differences: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Bargaining over Dispute Resolution Provisions.”International Studies Quarterly54 (1): 1–26.
4.
AreaLeandrode StockhausenElke Nieschultz. 1984. El Golfo de Venezuela: documentación y cronología. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
5.
Ascanio JiménezAgustín. 1974. El Golfo de Venezuela es territorio venezolano. Caracas, Venezuela: Ediciones Garrido.
BercovitchJacobJacksonRichard. 2001. “Negotiation or Mediation?: An Exploration of Factors Affecting the Choice of Conflict Management in International Conflict.”Negotiation Journal17 (1): 59–77.
8.
BilderRichard B.2007. “Adjudication: International Arbitration Tribunals and Courts.” In Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, revised edition, edited by ZartmanI. William, 195–226. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace.
9.
CoplinWilliam D.1968. “The World Court in the International Bargaining Process.” In The United Nations and its Functions, edited by GreggR. W.BarkimM., 313–31. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
10.
DiehlPaul F.1992. “What are They Fighting for? The Importance of Issues in International Conflict Research.”Journal of Peace Research29 (3): 333–44.
11.
DixonWilliam J.1993. “Democracy and the Management of International Conflict.”International Organization37 (1): 42–68.
12.
DixonWilliam J.1996. Third-Party Techniques for Preventing Conflict Escalation and Promoting Peaceful Settlement.”International Organization50 (4): 653–81.
13.
FrazierDerrick V.DixonWilliam J.. 2006. “Third Party Intermediaries and Negotiated Settlements, 1946-2000.”International Interactions32 (4): 385–408.
14.
GentStephen E.ShannonMegan. 2010. “The Effectiveness of International Arbitration and Adjudication: Getting into a Bind.”Journal of Politics72 (2): 366–80.
15.
GentStephen E.ShannonMegan. 2011. “Bias and the Effectiveness of Third-Party Conflict Management Mechanisms.”Conflict Management and Peace Science28 (2): 124–144.
16.
GeorgeLarry N.1988–89. “Realism and Internationalism in the Gulf of Venezuela.”Journal of InterAmerican Studies and World Affairs30 (4): 139–70.
17.
GochmanCharles S.LengRussell J.. 1983. “Realpolitik and the Road to War: An Analysis of Attributes and Behavior.”International Studies Quarterly27 (1): 97–120.
18.
HenselPaul R.1996. “Charting a Course to Conflict: Territorial Issues and Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1992.”Conflict Management and Peace Science15 (1): 43–73.
19.
HenselPaul R.2001. “Contentious Issues and World Politics: The Management of Territorial Claims in the Americas, 1816-1992.”International Studies Quarterly45 (1): 81–109.
20.
HenselPaul R.2008. General Codebook: Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project. Denton: University of North Texas.
21.
HenselPaul R.MitchellSara McLaughlinSowersThomas E. IIThyneClayton L.. 2008. “Bones of Contention: Comparing Territorial, Maritime, and River Issues.”Journal of Conflict Resolution52 (1): 117–43.
22.
HuthPaul D.2000. “Territory: Why are Territorial Disputes between States a Central Cause of International Conflict?” In What do we Know about War?, edited by VasquezJohn A., 85–110. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
KingGaryTomzMichaelWittenbergJason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.”American Journal of Political Science44 (2): 347–61.
25.
KoremenosBarbara. 2007. “If only Half of International Agreements have Dispute Resolution Provisions, which Half Needs Explaining?”Journal of Legal Studies36 (1): 189–212.
26.
MarshallMonty G.JaggersKeith. 2002. Polity IV Data Set. College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland.
27.
MartzJohn D.1988–89. “National Security and Politics: The Colombian-Venezuelan Border.”Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs30 (4): 117–38.
28.
MitchellSara McLaughlinHenselPaul R.. 2007. “International Institutions, Cooperation, and Compliance with Agreements.”American Journal of Political Science51 (4): 721–37.
29.
CabraMonroyGerardoMarco. 1989. Delimitación terrestre y maritima entre Colombia y Venezuela. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Santo Tomás.
30.
OlavarríaJorge. 1988. El Golfo de Venezuela es de Venezuela. Caracas, Venezuela: Armitano.
31.
RobinsonDavis R.ColsonDavid A.RashkowBruce C.. 1985. “Some Perspectives on Adjudicating before the World Court: The Gulf of Maine Case.”American Journal of International Law79 (3): 578–97.
32.
SandsPhilippeMackenzieRuthShanyYuval, eds. 1999. Manual on International Courts and Tribunals. London: Butterworths.
33.
SchoultzLars. 1998. Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy toward Latin America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
SenesePaul D.1996. “Geographical Proximity and Issue Salience: Their Effects on the Escalation of Militarized Interstate Conflict.”Conflict Management and Peace Science15 (2): 133–61.
35.
SimmonsBeth. 1999. “See You in ‘Court'? The Appeal to Quasi-Judicial Legal Processes in the Settlement of Territorial Disputes.” In A Roadmap to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict, edited by DiehlPaul F., 205–37. Nashville, TN Vanderbilt University Press.
36.
SimmonsBeth. 2002. “Capacity, Commitment, and Compliance: International Institutions and Territorial Disputes.”Journal of Conflict Resolution46 (6): 829–56.
37.
SingerJ. DavidBremerStuartStuckeyJohn. 1972. “Capability, Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820-1965.” In Peace, War and Numbers, edited by RussettBruce, 19–48. Beverly Hills, CA SAGE.
38.
Sureda DelgadoRafael. 1995. La delimitación con Colombia: Lineas y conflictos. Valencia, Venezuela: Vadell Hermanos Editores.
39.
ThibautJ.WalkerLaurens. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
ThibautJ.WalkerLaurens. 1978. “A Theory of Procedure.”California Law Review66: 541–66.
41.
VasquezJohn A.1993. The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
WiegandKrista E.PowellEmilia Justyna. 2011. “Past Experience, Quest for the Best Forum, and Peaceful Attempts to Resolve Territorial Disputes.”Journal of Conflict Resolution55 (1): 33–59.
43.
Zuleta AngelEduardo. 1972. El llamado Golfo de Venezuela. Bogotá, Colombia: Italgraf.
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.
