What influences the duration of interstate militarized conflicts? I argue that duration is affected by when the militarization occurs in the overarching dispute. Further, I suggest that the type of dispute being fought over has a conditioning effect. I hypothesize that later-occurring militarizations will last longer, but only in disputes over territorial issues. I test my argument on a sample of militarized conflicts over territorial, maritime, and river disputes, using a dynamic methodological technique to account for states’ strategic calculations. I find empirical support for my theoretical claims, contributing to our understanding of the interplay between interstate disputes and militarization.
BarbieriKKeshkOMGPollinsBM (2008) Correlates of War Project Trade Data Set Codebook, Version 2.0. Available at: http://www.correlatesofwar.org.
2.
BeckN (2010) Time is not a theoretical variable. Political Analysis18(3): 293–294.
3.
BeckNKatzJTuckerR (1998) Taking time seriously: Time-series–cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science42(4): 1260–1288.
4.
BennettDSStamAC (1996) The duration of interstate wars, 1816–1985. American Political Science Review90(2): 239–257.
5.
BlaineyG (1988) The Causes of War, 3rd edn. New York: Free Press.
6.
Box-SteffensmeierJMJonesBS (2004) Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BrochmannMGleditschNP (2012) Shared rivers and conflict: A reconsideration. Political Geography31(8): 519–527.
8.
BrochmannMHenselPR (2009) Peaceful management of international river claims. International Negotiation14(2): 393–418.
9.
Bueno de MesquitaBKochMTSiversonRM (2004) Testing competing institutional explanations of the democratic peace: The case of dispute duration. Conflict Management and Peace Science21(4): 255–267.
10.
CarterDB (2010) The strategy of territorial conflict. American Journal of Political Science54(4): 969–987.
11.
CarterDBSignorinoCS (2010) Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data. Political Analysis18(3): 271–292.
12.
ClarkDHReedW (2003) A unified model of war onset and outcome. Journal of Politics65(1): 69–91.
13.
DzurekDJ (2005) What makes territory important: Tangible and intangible dimensions. GeoJournal64(4): 263–274.
14.
EscudéC (1988) Argentine territorial nationalism. Journal of Latin American Studies20(1): 139–165.
15.
FearonJD (1995) Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization49(3): 379–414.
ForsbergT (1996) Explaining territorial disputes: From power politics to normative reasons. Journal of Peace Research33(4): 433–449.
18.
FurlongKGleditschNPHegreH (2006) Geographic opportunity and neomalthusian willingness: Boundaries, shared rivers, and conflict. International Interactions32(1): 79–108.
19.
GhosnFPalmerGBremerSA (2004) The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science21(2): 133–154.
20.
GoddardSE (2006) Uncommon ground: Indivisible territory and the politics of legitimacy. International Organization60(1): 35–68.
21.
GoddardSE (2009) Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy: Jerusalem and Northern Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
GoemansHE (2000) Fighting for survival: The fate of leaders and the duration of war. Journal of Conflict Resolution44(5): 555–579.
23.
GoertzGDiehlPF (1992) Territorial Changes and International Conflict. London: Routledge.
24.
GreifALaitinDD (2004) A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review98(4): 633–652.
25.
GujaratiD (2002) Basic Econometrics, 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
HassnerRE (2007) The path to intractability: Time and the entrenchment of territorial disputes. International Security31(3): 107–138.
27.
HaysJCKachiA (2009) Interdependent duration models in political science. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, ON.
28.
HenselPR (2001a) Evolution in domestic politics and the development of rivalry: The Bolivia–Paraguay case. In: ThompsonWR (ed.) Evolutionary Interpretations of World Politics. New York: Routledge, pp. 176–217.
29.
HenselPR (2001b) Contentious issues and world politics: The management of territorial claims in the Americas, 1816–1992. International Studies Quarterly45(1): 81–109.
30.
HenselPR (2005) Codebook for river claims data: Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project. Available at: http://www.icow.org (accessed 7March2011).
31.
HenselPRMitchellSM (2005) Issue indivisibility and territorial claims. GeoJournal64(4): 275–285.
32.
HenselPRMitchellSMSowersTE (2006) Conflict management of riparian disputes. Political Geography25(4): 383–411.
33.
HenselPRMitchellSMSowersTEThyneCL (2008) Bones of contention: Comparing territorial, maritime, and river issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(1): 117–143.
34.
HuthPKAlleeTL (2002) The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
JanisILMannL (1977) Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York: Free Press.
37.
JervisR (1968) Hypotheses on misperception. World Politics20(3): 454–479.
38.
JonesDMBremerSASingerJD (1996) Militarized interstate disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(2): 163–213.
39.
KalbhennA (2011) Liberal peace and shared resources: A fair-weather phenomenon?Journal of Peace Research48(6): 715–735.
40.
KertzerJD (2013) Resolve in international politics. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University.
41.
KochMT (2009) Governments, partisanship, and foreign policy: The case of dispute duration. Journal of Peace Research46(6): 799–817.
42.
KrebsRRJacksonPT (2007) Twisting tongues and twisting arms: The power of political rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations13(1): 35–66.
43.
KrustevVL (2006) Interdependence and the duration of militarized conflict. Journal of Peace Research43(3): 243–260.
44.
LangloisCCLangloisJ-PP (2009) Does attrition behavior help explain the duration of interstate wars? A game theoretic and empirical analysis. International Studies Quarterly53(4): 1051–1073.
45.
LeedsBARitterJMMitchellSMLongAG (2002) Alliance treaty obligations and provisions, 1815–1944. International Interactions28(3): 237–260.
46.
LeventoğluBSlantchevBL (2007) The armed peace: A punctuated equilibrium theory of war. American Journal of Political Science51(4): 755–771.
47.
LichtAA (2011) Change comes with time: Substantive interpretation of nonproportional hazards in event history analysis. Political Analysis19(2): 227–243.
MarshallMGJaggersK (2005) Polity IV Project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2004. Available at: http://www.systemicpeace.org/.
50.
McGillivrayFSmithA (2000) Trust and cooperation through agent-specific punishments. International Organization54(4): 809–824.
51.
MetzgerSK (2013a) Conflict dynamics in militarized interstate disputes. PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
52.
MetzgerSK (2013b) High stakes or close proximity? Explaining the frequency of militarization in disputed issues. Presented at the Journeys in World Politics Workshop, Iowa City, IA.
53.
MitchellSM (2002) Codebook for Maritime Claims Data, Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project. Available at: http://www.icow.org (accessed 7April2011).
54.
MitchellSMThiesCG (2011) Issue rivalries. Conflict Management and Peace Science28(3): 230–260.
55.
MooreWH (1995) Action–reaction or rational expectations? Reciprocity and the domestic–international conflict nexus during the “Rhodesia Problem”. Journal of Conflict Resolution39(1): 129–167.
56.
NemethSCMitchellSMNymanEAHenselPR (2014) Ruling the sea: Managing maritime conflicts through UNCLOS and exclusive economic zones. International Interactions40(5): 711–736.
57.
O’LearSDiehlPFFrazierDVAlleeTL (2005) Dimensions of territorial conflict and resolution: Tangible and intangible values of territory. GeoJournal64(4): 259–261.
58.
PageSE (2006) Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science1(1): 87–115.
PevehouseJCNordstromTWarnkeK (2004) The Correlates of War 2 International Governmental Organizations Data Version 2.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science21(2): 101–119.
61.
PowellR (2004) Bargaining and learning while fighting. American Journal of Political Science48(2): 344–361.
62.
RandleRF (1987) Issues in the History of International Relations: The Role of Issues in the Evolution of the State System. New York: Praeger.
63.
ReedW (2000) A unified statistical model of conflict onset and escalation. American Journal of Political Science44(1): 84–93.
64.
SchultzKA (1999) Do democratic institutions constrain or inform? Contrasting two institutional perspectives on democracy and war. International Organization53(2): 233–266.
65.
SenesePD (2005) Territory, contiguity, and international conflict: Assessing a new joint explanation. American Journal of Political Science49(4): 769–779.
66.
SenesePDVasquezJA (2008) The Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
ShannonMMoreyDSBoehmkeFJ (2010) The influence of international organizations on militarized dispute initiation and duration. International Studies Quarterly54(4): 1123–1141.
68.
SignorinoCS (2002) Strategy and selection in international relations. International Interactions28(1): 93–115.
69.
SignorinoCS (2003) Structure and uncertainty in discrete choice models. Political Analysis11(4): 316–344.
70.
SingerJDBremerSAStuckeyJ (1972) Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820–1965. In: RussettB (ed.) Peace, War, and Numbers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 19–48.
71.
SlantchevBL (2004) How initiators end their wars: The duration of warfare and the terms of peace. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 813–829.
72.
SlantchevBL (2011) Military Threats: The Costs of Coercion and the Price of Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
73.
SmallMSingerJD (1982) Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816–1980. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
74.
SoveyAJGreenDP (2011) Instrumental variables estimation in political science: A readers’ guide. American Journal of Political Science55(1): 188–200.
75.
StanleyEASawyerJP (2009) The equifinality of war termination. Journal of Conflict Resolution53(5): 651–676.
76.
ThiesCG (2001) Territorial nationalism in spatial rivalries: An institutionalist account of the Argentine–Chilean rivalry. International Interactions27(4): 399–431.
77.
TirJStinnettDM (2012) Weathering climate change: Can institutions mitigate international water conflict?Journal of Peace Research49(1): 211–225.
78.
TomzM (2007) Domestic audience costs in international relations: An experimental approach. International Organization61(4): 821–840.
79.
VasquezJA (1983) The tangibility of issues and global conflict: A test of Rosenau’s issue area typology. Journal of Peace Research20(2): 179–192.
80.
VasquezJA (2009) The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
81.
VasquezJAMansbachRW (1984) The role of issues in global co-operation and conflict. British Journal of Political Science14(4): 411–433.
82.
WalterBF (2003) Explaining the intractability of territorial conflict. International Studies Review5(4): 137–153.
83.
WendtA (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization46(2): 391–425.
84.
WendtA (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
85.
WiegandKE (2011) Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy, and Settlement. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
