We explore states’ decisions to escalate disputes over their territorial claims or settle them peacefully. We complement existing arguments by accounting for the fact that states are often simultaneously entangled in multiple territorial claims. We build on previous scholarship in positing that two states involved in a territorial dispute will act based on information they glean from each other’s reputation for dealing with claims with other states and their recent actions involving disputes with other states. Because states know that their actions will impact their adversaries’ calculations, the existence of multiple ongoing territorial claims will act as a deterrent from any type of action to resolve the dispute, whether militarized or peaceful. Our hypotheses therefore consider the impact of the number of states’ other territorial claims as well as the number of their adversaries’ claims. Tests using the Issue Correlates of War data support our arguments.
BanksArthur S.WilsonKenneth A.. 2012. Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive. Jerusalem, Israel: Databanks International. Accessed December 15, 2012.http://www.databanksinternational.com.
2.
Bueno de MesquitaBruce1981. The War Trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
BurgisMichelle. 2009. Boundaries of Discourse in the International Court of Justice: Mapping Arguments in Arab Territorial Disputes. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.
CopelandDale. 2001. The Origins of Major War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
9.
CrescenziMark J. C.2007. “Reputation and Interstate Conflict.”American Journal of Political Science51 (2): 382–96.
10.
CrescenziMark J. C.EnterlineAndrew J.. 2001. “Time Remembered: A Dynamic Model of Interstate Interaction.”International Studies Quarterly45 (3): 409–31.
11.
CrescenziMark J. C.KaderaKelly M.MitchellSara McLaughlinThyneClayton L.. 2011. “A Supply Side Theory of Mediation.”International Studies Quarterly55 (4): 1069–94.
12.
DavidSteven R.1991. “Explaining Third World Alignment.”World Politics43 (2): 233–56.
13.
DixonWilliam J.1993. “Democracy and the Management of International Conflict.”Journal of Conflict Resolution37 (1): 42–68.
14.
DixonWilliam J.1994. “Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict.”American Political Science Review88 (1): 14–32.
HenselPaul R.2001. “Contentious Issues and World Politics: The Management of Territorial Claims in the Americas, 1816-1992.”International Studies Quarterly45 (1): 81–109.
HenselPaul R.MitchellSara McLaughlinSowersThomas E. IIThyneClayton L.. 2008. “Bones of Contention: Comparing Territorial, Maritime, and River Issues.”Journal of Conflict Resolution52 (1): 117–43.
23.
HuthPaul K.1988. “Extended Deterrence and the Outbreak of War.”American Political Science Review82 (2): 423–43.
24.
HuthPaul K.1996. “Enduring Rivalries and Territorial Disputes, 1950-1990.”Conflict Management and Peace Science15 (1): 7–41.
25.
HuthPaul K.1997a. “Reputations and Deterrence: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment.”Security Studies7 (1): 72–99.
26.
HuthPaul K.1997b. Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
HuthPaul K.RussettBruce M.. 1984. “What Makes Deterrence Work? Cases from 1900 to 1980.”World Politics36 (4): 496–526.
LektzianDavidPrinsBrandon C.SouvaMark. 2010. “Territory, River, and Maritime Claims in the Western Hemisphere: Regime Type, Rivalry, and MIDs from 1901 to 2000.”International Studies Quarterly54 (4): 1073–98.
31.
LemkeDouglasReedWilliam. 1996. “Regime Types and Status Quo Evaluations: Power Transition Theory and the Democratic Peace.”International Interactions22 (2): 143–64.
32.
LevyJack S.1989. “The Diversionary Theory of War: A Critique.” In Handbook of War Studies, edited by MidlarskyManus I., 259–88. London, UK: Unwin-Hyman.
33.
MaozZeevTerrisLeslie G.KupermanRanan D.TalmudIlan. 2006. “Structural Equiv-alence and International Conflict, 1816-2001. A Network Analysis of Affinities and Conflict.”Journal of Politics69 (1): 100–15.
34.
MaozZeevTerrisLeslie G.KupermanRanan D.TalmudIlan. 2007. “What Is the Enemy of My Enemy? Causes and Consequences of Imbalanced International Relations, 1816–2001.”Journal of Politics69 (1): 100–15.
35.
MarshallMonty G.JaggersKeith. 2004. “Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2003.”Accessed March 2, 2011.http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm.
36.
MitchellSara Mclaughlin. 2002. “A Kantian System? Democracy and Third-Party Conflict Resolution.”American Journal of Political Science46 (4): 749–59.
37.
MitchellSara McLaughlinHenselPaul R.. 2007. “International Institutions and Compliance with Agreements.”American Journal of Political Science51 (4): 721–37.
38.
MorrowJames D.1999. “The Strategic Setting of Choices: Signaling, Commitment, and Negotiation in International Politics.” In Strategic Choice and International Relations, edited by LakeD. A.PowellR., 77–114. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
ReiterDan. 2003. “Exploring the Bargaining Model of War.”Perspectives on Politics1:25–50.
40.
SartoriAnne E.2002. “The Might of the Pen: A Reputational Theory of Communication in International Disputes.”International Organization56 (1): 121–49.
41.
SchrodtPhilip A.MintzAlex. 1988. “A Conditional Probability Analysis of Regional Interactions in the Middle East.”American Journal of Political Science32 (1): 217–30.
42.
SignorinoCurtis S.RitterJeffrey M.. 1999. “Tau-b or Not Tau-b: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions.”International Studies Quarterly43 (1): 115–44.
43.
SingerDavid J.BremerStuartStuckeyJohn. 1972. “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820-1965.” In Peace, War, and Numbers, edited by RussettB. M., 239–74. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44.
SmithAlastair. 1996. “Diversionary Foreign Policy in Democratic Systems.”International Studies Quarterly40:133–54.
45.
WalterBarbara F.2003. “Explaining the Intractability of Territorial Conflict.”International Studies Review5 (4): 137–53.
46.
WernerSuzanne. 2000. “Deterring Intervention: The Stakes of War and Third Party Involvement.”American Journal of Political Science44 (4): 720–32.
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.
