It is well established that territorial issues are highly conflict prone. Furthermore, dyads encountering conflicts over territory should be expected to fight more frequently, with shorter durations of peace than other dyads. However, the growing literature examining factors leading to the recurrence of conflict has largely ignored the impact of territorial issues, focusing instead on factors such as the type of dispute settlement. In this article, I seek to examine the relationship between territorial issues, settlements, and conflict recurrence through survival analyses of the periods of peace following 2,974 dyadic militarized interstate disputes between 1816 and 2001.
Blainey, Geoffrey.1988. The Causes of War, 3rd edn. London: Macmillan.
2.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. and Bradford S. Jones.2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. and Christopher J.W. Zorn.2001. Duration models and proportional hazards in political science. American Journal of Political Science45(4): 972-988.
4.
Bremer, Stuart A.1992. Dangerous dyads. Journal of Conflict Resolution36(2): 309-41.
5.
Cleves, Mario, William Gould, Roberto Gutierrez and Yulia Marchenko.2008. An Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata, 2nd edn. College Station, TX: Stata.
6.
Diehl, Paul F.1992. What are they fighting for?Journal of Peace Research29(3): 333-344.
7.
Diehl, Paul F. and Gary Goertz.2000. War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
Dixon, William J.1994. Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict. American Political Science Review88(March): 1-17.
9.
Fortna, Virginia Page.2004. Peace Time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
Ghosn, Faten, Glenn Palmer and Stuart A. Bremer.2004. The MID3 Data Set, 1993-2001. Conflict Management and Peace Science21(2): 133-154.
11.
Gochman, Charles S. and Zeev Maoz.1984. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1976: Procedures, patterns, and insights. Journal of Conflict Resolution28(4): 586-615.
12.
Goertz, Gary, Bradford Jones and Paul F. Diehl.2005. Maintenance processes in international rivalries. Journal of Conflict Resolution49(5): 742-769.
13.
Grambsch, Patricia M., and Terry M. Therneau.1994. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika81(3): 515-26.
14.
Grieco, Joseph M.2001. Repetitive military challenges and recurrent international conflicts, 1918-1994. International Studies Quarterly45: 295-316.
15.
Hartzell, Caroline A.1999. Explaining the stability of negotiated settlements to intrastate wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution43(1): 3-22.
16.
Hensel, Paul R.1994. One thing leads to another. Journal of Peace Research31: 281-297.
17.
Hensel, Paul R.1996. Charting a course to conflict: Territorial issues and interstate conflict, 1816-1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science15: 43-73.
18.
Hensel, Paul R.1999. An evolutionary approach to the study of interstate rivalry . Conflict Management and Peace Science17: 175-206.
19.
Huth, Paul K.1996. Standing Your Ground. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
20.
Huth, Paul K.2000. Territory. In What Do We Know About War? ed. John A. Vasquez.Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
21.
Jones, Daniel M., Stuart A. Bremer and J. David Singer.1996. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(2): 163-213.
22.
Maoz, Zeev.1984. Peace by empire? Journal of Peace Research21(5): 227-241.
23.
Maoz, Zeev.2005. Dyadic MID Dataset, version 2.0 ( http://psfaculty.ucdavis.edu/zmaoz/dyadmid.html).
24.
Marshall, Monty G. and Keith Jaggers.2002. Polity IV Project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2002 (http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity ).
25.
Mattes, Michaela.2008. The effect of changing conditions and agreement provisions on conflict and renegotiation between states with competing claims. International Studies Quarterly52: 315-334.
26.
Most, Benjamin A. and Harvey Starr.1989. Inquiry, Logic and International Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
27.
Quackenbush, Stephen L.2006. Identifying opportunity for conflict: Politically active dyads. Conflict Management and Peace Science23(1): 37-51.
28.
Quackenbush, Stephen L. and Jerome F. Venteicher.2008. Settlements, outcomes, and the recurrence of conflict . Journal of Peace Research45(6): 723-742.
29.
Schultz, Kenneth A.2001. Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Senese, Paul D.1996. Geographical proximity and issue salience: Their effects on the escalation of militarized interstate conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(2): 133-161.
31.
Senese, Paul D.2005. Territory, contiguity, and international conflict: Assessing a new joint explanation. American Journal of Political Science49(4): 769-779.
32.
Senese, Paul D. and Stephen L. Quackenbush.2003. Sowing the seeds of conflict. Journal of Politics65(August): 696-717.
33.
Senese, Paul D. and John A. Vasquez.2003. A unified explanation of territorial conflict. International Studies Quarterly47(2): 275-298.
34.
Senese, Paul D. and John A. Vasquez.2005. Assessing the steps to war. British Journal of Political Science35(4): 607-633.
35.
Vasquez, John A.1995. Why do neighbors fight?Journal of Peace Research32(3): 277-293.
36.
Walter, Barbara F.2003. Explaining the intractability of territorial conflict . International Studies Review5(4): 137-153.
37.
Werner, Suzanne.1999. The precarious nature of peace. American Journal of Political Science43(July): 912-934.
38.
Werner, Suzanne and Amy Yuen.2005. Making and keeping peace. International Organization59(2): 262-293.
39.
Zagare, Frank C. and D. Marc Kilgour.2000. Perfect Deterrence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
