Extant scholarship establishes that territorial issues are more likely than other types of issues to lead to militarized interstate disputes and war. One key premise is that a strong attachment to the material and symbolic values of the homeland makes people more willing to fight for their country in territorial disputes. However, there is no systematic evidence for this premise. Although recent studies investigate the effect of territorial conflict on individual attitudes and find that territorial issues are qualitatively different from other types of issues, researchers have not yet investigated how territorial threats influence people’s willingness to fight. By combining data on territorial claims from the Issue Correlates of War project with individual-level data from the World Values Survey, this article tests the relationship between territorial claims and individuals’ willingness to fight. My analysis reveals that respondents are more willing to fight for their country when their countries experience territorial claims. Building on the contentious issues approach, I further demonstrate the importance of issue salience and issue context in the relationship between territorial claims and willingness to fight. Last, I show that the relationship between territorial claims and willingness to fight depends on a country’s level of economic development or regime type.
FrederickBryan AHenselPaul RMacaulayChristopher (2017) The Issue Correlates of War Territorial Claims Data, 1816–2001. Journal of Peace Research54(1): 99–108.
8.
GartzkeErik (2007) The capitalist peace. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 166–191.
9.
GetmanskyAnnaAndersonChristopher JHirsch-HoeflerSivan (forthcoming) Burden sharing: Income, inequality, and willingness to fight. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000679.
10.
GiblerDouglas M (2012) The Territorial Peace: Borders, State Development, and International Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
GiblerDouglas MHutchisonMarc LMillerSteven V (2012) Individual identity attachments and international conflict: The importance of territorial threat. Comparative Political Studies45(12): 1655–1683.
12.
GiblerDouglas MMillerSteven VLittleErin K (2016) An analysis of the Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) dataset, 1816–2001. International Studies Quarterly60(4): 719–730.
13.
GibsonStephenNoretNathalie (2010) Historical experiences, collective memory, and willingness to fight for one’s country: Comments on Paez et al. (2008). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology41(3): 445–450.
14.
GoddardStacie E (2006) Uncommon ground: Indivisible territory and the politics of legitimacy. International Organization60(1): 35–68.
15.
GoertzGaryDiehlPaul FBalasAlexandru (2016) The Puzzle of Peace: The Evolution of Peace in the International System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
HassnerRon E (2003) ‘To halve and to hold’: Conflicts over sacred space and the problem of indivisibility. Security Studies12(4): 1–33.
17.
HassnerRon E (2006) The path to intractability: Time and the entrenchment of territorial disputes. International Security31(3): 107–138.
18.
HenselPaul R (2001) Contentious issues and world politics: The management of territorial claims in the Americas, 1816–1992. International Studies Quarterly45(1): 81–109.
19.
HenselPaul R (2012) Territory: Geography, contentious issues, and world politics. In: VasquezJohn A (ed.) What Do We Know About War?2nd edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 3–26.
HenselPaul RMitchellSara McLaughlinSowersThomas EThyneClayton L (2008) Bones of contention comparing territorial, maritime, and river issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(1): 117–143.
22.
HestonAlanSummersRobertAtenBettina (2011) Penn World Table version 7.0.
23.
HolstiKalevi J (1991) Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648–1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
HutchisonMarc LGiblerDouglas M (2007) Political tolerance and territorial threat: A cross-national study. Journal of Politics69(1): 128–142.
25.
HuthPaul K (1996) Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
26.
HwangWonjaeChoWonbinWiegandKrista (2018) Do Korean–Japanese historical disputes generate rally effects?Journal of Asian Studies77(3): 693–711.
27.
IgarashiAkira (2018) Territorial conflicts and Japanese attitudes towards east Asian countries: Natural experiments with foreigners’ landings on disputed islands. Political Psychology39(4): 977–992.
28.
InglehartRonald FPuranenBiWelzelChristian (2015) Declining willingness to fight for one’s country: The individual-level basis of the long peace. Journal of Peace Research52(4): 418–434.
29.
JakobsenJoJakobsenTor GEkevoldEirin Rande (2016) Democratic peace and the norms of the public: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between regime type and citizens’ bellicosity, 1981–2008. Review of International Studies42(5): 968–991.
30.
JohnsonDominic DPToftMonica Duffy (2014) Grounds for war: The evolution of territorial conflict. International Security38(3): 7–38.
31.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47(2): 263–291.
32.
KuoJasonHuangMin-hua (2019) Does Beijing’s land reclamation in the south China sea hurt its soft power? A difference-in-differences approach. Unpublished working paper.
33.
LevyJack S (1998) The causes of war and the conditions of peace. Annual Review of Political Science1(1): 139–165.
34.
MaozZeevRussettBruce (1993) Normative and structural causes of the democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review87(3): 624–638.
35.
MillerSteven V (2017) Individual-level expectations of executive authority under territorial threat. Conflict Management and Peace Science34(5): 526–545.
36.
PalmerGlennd’OrazioVitoKenwickMichaelLaneMatthew (2015) The MID4 dataset, 2002–2010: Procedures, coding rules and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science32(2): 222–242.
37.
Pew Research Center (2014) Global opposition to US surveillance and drones, but limited harm to America’s image.
38.
RosecranceRichard N (1986) The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. New York: Basic Books.
39.
SenesePaul D (1996) Geographical proximity and issue salience: Their effects on the escalation of militarized interstate conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(2): 133–161.
40.
SenesePaul DVasquezJohn A (2003) A unified explanation of territorial conflict: Testing the impact of sampling bias, 1919–1992. International Studies Quarterly47(2): 275–298.
41.
SenesePaul DVasquezJohn A (2008) The Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
ShelefNadav G (2016) Unequal ground: Homelands and conflict. International Organization70(1): 33–63.
43.
SmithAnthony D (1989) The origins of nations. Ethnic and Racial Studies12(3): 340–367.
44.
TanakaSeiki (2016) The microfoundations of territorial disputes: Evidence from a survey experiment in Japan. Conflict Management and Peace Science33(5): 516–538.
45.
ThompsonWilliam RDreyerDavid R (2011) Handbook of International Rivalries, 1494–2010. Washington, DC: CQ.
46.
TirJaroslav (2010) Territorial diversion: Diversionary theory of war and territorial conflict. Journal of Politics72(2): 413–425.
47.
TirJaroslavSinghShane P (2015) Get off my lawn: Territorial civil wars and subsequent social intolerance in the public. Journal of Peace Research52(4): 478–491.
48.
ToftMonica Duffy (2005) The Geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
ToftMonica Duffy (2014) Territory and war. Journal of Peace Research51(2): 185–198.
VasquezJohn A (1983) The tangibility of issues and global conflict: A test of Rosenau’s issue area typology. Journal of Peace Research20(2): 179–192.
52.
VasquezJohn A (2009) The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge 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.
