Is predicting the international community’s cumulative response to an interstate dispute possible? Can we predict what form conflict management will take and how it will evolve over the course of a dispute? I employ the concept of a conflict management trajectory to test a forecasting model of conflict management. This model accurately predicts conflict management behavior and uncovers numerous novel insights—including that the initial intervention indicates clearly the resources the international community is willing to spend on managing the dispute. These results confirm the need to theorize further about conflict management interdependence and offer clear advice to the policy community.
BarbieriKKeshkOMGPollinsB (2009) Trading data: Evaluating our assumptions and coding rules. Conflict Management and Peace Science26(5): 471–491.
2.
BeardsleyK (2011) The Mediation Dilemma. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
3.
BeberB (2012) International mediation, selection effects, and the question of bias. Conflict Management and Peace Science29(4): 397–424.
4.
BercovitchJ (2004) International Conflict Management Database. Data and Coding Manual, Christchurch, New Zealand.
5.
BercovitchJGartnerSS (2006) Is there method in the madness of mediation? Some lessons for mediators from quantitative studies of mediation. International Interactions32(4): 329–354
6.
BercovitchJGartnerSS (eds) (2009) International Conflict Mediation: New Approaches and Findings. New York: Routledge.
7.
BercovitchJJacksonR (2009) Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
8.
BöhmeltT (2012) Why many cooks if they can spoil the broth? The determinants of multiparty mediation. Journal of Peace Research49(5): 701–715.
9.
BöhmeltT (2013) Failing to succeed? The cumulative impact of international mediation revisited. Conflict Management and Peace Science30(3): 199–219.
10.
BrecherMWilkenfeldJ (2000) A Study in Crisis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
11.
ClaudeIL (1984) Swords into Plowshares, 4th edn. New York: Random House.
12.
CorbettaR (2014) Between indifference and coercion: Third-party intervention techniques in ongoing disputes. Conflict Management and Peace Science, this issue.
13.
Correlates of War Project (2008) State System Membership List v2008.1. Available at: http://correlatesofwar.org
14.
CrescenziMJCKaderaKMMitchellSMThyneCL (2011) A supply side theory of mediation. International Studies Quarterly55(4): 1069–1094.
15.
CrockerCAHampsonFOAallP (eds) (2007) Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
DiehlPFGoertzG (2000) War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
18.
DoyleMWSambanisN (2006) Making War and Building Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
FavrettoK (2009) Should peacemakers take sides? Major power mediation, coercion, and bias. American Political Science Review103(2): 248–263.
20.
FortnaVP (2008) Does Peacekeeping Work? Shaping Belligerents’ Choices after Civil War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
FrazierDVDixonWJ (2006) Third-party intermediaries and negotiated settlements, 1946–2000. International Interactions32(4): 385–408.
22.
GelpiC (1999) Alliances as instruments of intra-allied control. In: HaftendornHKeohaneROWallanderCA (eds) Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions over Time and Space. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107–139.
23.
GentSEShannonM (2010) The effectiveness of international arbitration and adjudication: Getting into a bind. Journal of Politics72(2): 366–380.
24.
GentSEShannonM (2011) Decision control and the pursuit of binding conflict management: Choosing the ties that bind. Journal of Conflict Resolution55(5): 710–734.
25.
GhosnFPalmerGBremerSA (2004) The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science21(2): 133–154.
26.
GillJ (2006) Essential Mathematics for Political and Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
GleditschKSWardMD (2013) Forecasting is difficult, especially about the future: Using contentious issues to forecast interstate disputes. Journal of Peace Research50(1): 17–30.
28.
GoldstoneJABatesRHEpsteinDLGurrTRLustikMBMarshallMGUlfelderJWoodwardM (2010) A global model for forecasting political instability. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 190–208.
GreigJM (2005) Stepping into the fray: When do mediators mediate?American Journal of Political Science49(2): 249–266.
31.
GreigJMDiehlPF (2005) The peacekeeping–peacemaking dilemma. International Studies Quarterly49(4): 621–645.
32.
GreigJMDiehlPF (2006) Softening up: Making conflicts more amenable to diplomacy. International Interactions32(4): 355–384.
33.
GreigJMDiehlPF (2012) International Mediation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
34.
GreigJMReganPM (2008) When do they say yes? An analysis of the willingness to offer and accept mediation in civil wars. International Studies Quarterly52(4): 759–781.
35.
HeldtB (2009) Sequencing of peacemaking in emerging conflicts. In AggestamKBjörkdahlA (eds) War and Peace in Transition. Lund, Sweden: Nordic Academic Press, pp. 128–146.
36.
HenselPRMitchellSMSowersTEIIThyneCL (2008) Bones of contention: Comparing territorial, maritime, and river issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(1): 117–143.
37.
HewittJJ (2003) Dyadic processes and international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution47(5): 669–692.
38.
HowardLM (2008) UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
HuthPKCrocoSEAppelBJ (2013) Bringing law to the table: Legal claims, focal points, and the settlement of territorial disputes since 1945. American Journal of Political Science57(1): 90–103.
40.
KleinJPGoertzGDiehlPF (2006) The new rivalry dataset: Procedures and patterns. Journal of Peace Research43(3): 331–348.
41.
KupermanA (2008) The moral hazard of humanitarian intervention: Lessons from the Balkans. International Studies Quarterly52(1): 49–80.
42.
KyddA (2003) Which side are you on? Bias, credibility, and mediation. American Journal of Political Science47(4): 597–611.
43.
LengRJReganPM (2003) Social and political cultural effects on the outcomes of mediation in militarized interstate disputes. International Studies Quarterly47(3): 431–452.
44.
MaozZ (2004) Conflict management and conflict resolution: A conceptual and methodological introduction. In: MaozZMintzAMorganCTPalmerGStollRJ (eds) Multiple Paths to Knowledge in International Relations. Lanham, MD: Lexington, pp. 1–32.
45.
MelinMM (2011) The impact of state relationships on if, when, and how conflict management occurs. International Studies Quarterly55(3): 691–715.
46.
MelinMM (2014) Escalation in international conflict management: A foreign policy perspective. Conflict Management and Peace Science, this issue.
47.
MelinMMSvenssonI (2009) Incentives for talking: Accepting mediation in international and civil wars. International Interactions35(3): 249–271.
48.
OwsiakAP (2014) Conflict management trajectories in militarized interstate disputes: A conceptual framework and theoretical foundations. International Studies Review16(1): 50–78.
49.
OwsiakAPFrazierDV (2014) The conflict management efforts of allies in interstate disputes. Foreign Policy Analysis10(3): 243–264.
50.
PageSE (2006) Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science1: 87–115.
51.
PevehouseJCNordstromTWarnkeK (2004) The COW-2 International Governmental Organizations Data Version 2.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science21(2): 101–119.
52.
PowellEJ (2013) Islamic law states and the international court of justice. Journal of Peace Research50(2): 203–217.
53.
PrincenT (1992) Intermediaries in International Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
QuinnDWilkenfeldJSmarickKAsalV (2006) Power play: Mediation in symmetric and asymmetric international crises. International Interactions32(4): 441–470.
55.
ReganPM (2000) Civil Wars and Foreign Powers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
56.
ReganPMFrankRWAydinA (2009) Diplomatic interventions and civil war: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research46(1): 135–146.
57.
RichmondO (1998) Devious objectives and the disputants’ view of international mediation: A theoretical framework. Journal of Peace Research35(6): 707–22.
58.
SavunB (2008) Information, bias, and mediation success. International Studies Quarterly52(1): 25–47.
59.
ShellmanSMLeveyBPYoungJK (2013) Shifting sands: Explaining and predicting phase shifts by dissident organizations. Journal of Peace Research50(3): 319–336.
60.
SingerJD (1987) Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985. International Interactions14(2): 115–132.
