Ample empirical evidence suggests that there exist structural differences between groups of states in terms of conflict involvement rates. A small group of states accounts for most conflicts and wars in international politics. Another group of states managed to avoid conflict involvement for most of their history. These results are not surprising; they match the expectations of both experts and laypersons regarding the future of conflict in international politics. This study offers two tentative explanations for these structural patterns of conflict proneness and pacifism. Both explanations view these differential rates of conflict involvement as a result of a national selection process. The can syndrome suggests that certain states fight repeatedly because they view violent conflict as an efficient and effective instrument of policy. The must syndrome suggests that some states feel that conflict is their only way of dealing with a threatening international environment. I provide evidence supporting both explanations and discuss their implications for international politics.
Bercovitch, Jacob, Victor Kremenyuk, and I. William Zartman .2009. The nature of conflict and conflict resolution. In The Sage handbook of conflict resolution , eds J. Bercovitch, V. Kremenyuk, and I. W. Zartman , pp. 1-13. Los Angeles: Sage.
2.
Bremer, Stuart.1992. Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816-1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution36(2): 309-41.
3.
Bremer, Stuart.1993. Democracy and militarized interstate conflict, 1816-1965 . International Interactions18(3): 231-49.
4.
Bremer, Stuart.2000. Who fights whom, when, where, and why? In What do we know about war?, ed. J. A. Vasquez , pp. 23-36. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
5.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce.1981. The war trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and David Lalman.1992. War and reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
7.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow .2003. The logic of political survival . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Colaresi, Michael P., Karen Rasler, and William R. Thompson .2008. Strategic rivalries in world politics: Position, space and conflict escalation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
9.
Correlates of War Project.2003. Military capabilities of nations, 1816-2001, http://www.correlatesofwar.org/.
10.
Diehl, Paul F., and Gary Goertz.2000. War and peace in international rivalry . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
11.
Gat, Azar.2006. War in human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
Gochman, Charles S., and Zeev Maoz.1984. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1976: Procedures, patterns, insights. Journal of Conflict Resolution29(4): 585-615.
13.
Lake, D.A.1992. Powerful pacifists: Democratic states and war. American Political Science Review86(1): 24-37.
14.
Leng, Russell J.2000. Bargaining and learning in recurring crises. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
15.
Levy, Jack S.1983. War in the Great Power system, 1495-1975. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
16.
Maddison, Angus.2007. The world economy: A millennial perspective/historical statistics. Paris: OECD Press.
Maoz, Zeev.1983. Resolve, capabilities, and the outcome of interstate disputes, 1816-1976. Journal of Conflict Resolution27(2): 195-229.
19.
Maoz, Zeev.1989. Joining the Club of Nations: Political development and international conflict, 1816-1976. International Studies Quarterly33(2): 199-231.
20.
Maoz, Zeev.1993. The onset and initiation of militarized interstate disputes in the modern era. International Interactions19(1-2): 27-47.
21.
Maoz, Zeev.1996. Domestic sources of global change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22.
Maoz, Zeev.1998. Realist and cultural critiques of the democratic peace: A theoretical and empirical reassessment. International Interactions24(1): 3-89.
23.
Maoz, Zeev.2004. Pacifism and fightaholism in international politics: A structural history of national and dyadic conflict, 1816-1992. International Studies Review6(2): 107-33.
24.
Maoz, Zeev.2005. The Dyadic Militarized Interstate Dispute Dataset, Version 2.0 2005, http://psfaculty.ucdavis.edu/zmaoz/dyadmid.html .
25.
Maoz, Zeev.2006. Defending the Holy Land: A critical analysis of Israel’s security and foreign policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Maoz, Zeev.2010. Networks of nations: The evolution and structure of international networks, 1816-2006. New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.
28.
Maoz, Zeev, and Ben D. Mor .2002. Bound by struggle: The strategic evolution of enduring international rivalries. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
29.
Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett.1993. Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946-1986. American Political Science Review87(3): 624-38.
30.
Maoz, Zeev, and Randolph M. Siverson .2008. Bargaining, domestic politics, and international context in the management of war: A review essay. Conflict Management and Peace Science25(2): 171-89.
31.
Mearsheimer, John J.2001. The tragedy of Great Power politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
32.
Most, Benjamin A., and Harvey Starr.1989. Inquiry, logic, and international politics . Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
33.
Senese, Paul D., and John A. Vasquez .2008. The steps to war: An empirical study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
Singer, David J.1990. Reconstructing the Correlates of War Data Set on Material Capabilities of States, 1816-1985. In Measuring the Correlates of War, eds D. J. Singer and P. F. Diehl, pp. 53-72. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
35.
Singer, David J., and Sharharyar Minhas .2009. Conflict resolution in the international system: A quantitative approach. In The Sage handbook of conflict resolution, eds J. Bercovitch, V. Kremenyuk, and I. W. Zartman , pp. 52-71. Los Angeles: Sage.
36.
Siverson, Randolph M., and Harvey Starr.1990. Opportunity, willingness, and the diffusion of war. American Political Science Review84(1): 47-67.
37.
Siverson, Randolph M., and Harvey Starr.1991. The diffusion of war: A study of opportunity and willingness. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
38.
Slantchev, Branislav L.2004. How initiators end their war: The duration of warfare and the terms of peace. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 813-29.
39.
Starr, Harvey, and G. Dale Thomas .2002. The "nature" of contiguous borders: Ease of interaction, salience, and the analysis of crisis. International Interactions28(2): 213-35.
40.
Thompson, William R.2001. Identifying rivals and rivalries in world politics. International Studies Quarterly45(4): 557-86.
41.
Vasquez, John A.1993. The war puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Walt, Steven.1988. The origins of alliance. Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press.
43.
Waltz, Kenneth N.1979. Theory of international politics. New York: Random House.
