Why don't democracies fight each other? Since discovering this empirical regularity, scholars have assumed that the answer must lie with regime type (i.e. democracy). Our paper provides and tests an alternative explanation: the territorial explanation of war, which stresses grievances and argues that territorial issues incentivize states to resort to war more often than disagreements over other, non-territorial issues. We show that democracies do not generally have territorial militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) or the territorial claims that would produce territorial MIDs. Democracies are peaceful because they lack the most dangerous grievances in the international system.
BabstDV (1964) Elective government—A force for peace. The Wisconsin Sociologist3(1): 9–14.
2.
Bueno de MesquitaBMorrowJDSiversonRM, et al. (1999) An institutional explanation of the democratic peace. American Political Science Review93(4): 791–807.
3.
DixonWJ (1993) Democracy and the management of international conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution37(1): 42–68.
4.
DoyleMW (1986) Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review80(4): 1151–1169.
5.
FrederickBAHenselPRMacaulayC (2017) The issue correlates of war territorial claims data, 1816–2001. Journal of Peace Research54(1): 99–108.
6.
GartzkeE (1998) Kant we all just get along? Motive, opportunity, and the origins of the democratic peace. American Journal of Political Science42(1): 1–27.
7.
GartzkeE (2007) The capitalist peace. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 166–191.
8.
GiblerDM (2012) The Territorial Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
GiblerDMBraithwaiteA (2013) Dangerous neighbours, regional territorial conflict, and the democratic peace. British Journal of Political Science43(4): 877–887.
10.
GiblerDMOwsiakAP (2018) Democracy and the settlement of international borders, 1816–2001. Journal of Conflict Resolution62(9): 1847–1875.
11.
GiblerDMTirJ (2014) Territorial peace and democratic clustering. Journal of Politics76(1): 27–40.
12.
HarrisonEMitchellSM (2014) The Triumph of Democracy and the Eclipse of the West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
HenselPR (1996) Charting a course to conflict: Territorial issues and interstate conflict, 1816–1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(1): 43–73.
14.
HenselPRMitchellSMSowersTEII, et al. (2008) Bones of contention: Comparing territorial, maritime, and river issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(1): 117–143.
15.
HuthPKAlleeT (2002) The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
JacksonJOwsiakAPGoertzG, et al. (2022) Getting to the root of the issue(s): Expanding the study of issues in MIDs (the MID-Issue Dataset, version 1.0). Journal of Conflict Resolution66(7–8):1514–1542.
17.
KarrethJTirJGiblerDM (2022) Latent territorial threat and democratic regime reversals. Journal of Peace Research59(2): 197–212.
18.
KocsSA (1995) Territorial disputes and interstate war, 1945–1987. Journal of Politics57(1): 159–175.
19.
KuglerJZagareFC (1990) The long-term stability of deterrence. International Interactions15(3–4): 255–278.
20.
LakeD (2009) Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21.
LemkeD (2002) Regions of War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
LevyJSDiCiccoJM (2003) The power transition research program: A lakatosian analysis. In: ElmanCElmanMF (eds) Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 109–157.
23.
MaozZ (2004) Pacifism and fightaholism in international politics: A structural history of national and dyadic conflict, 1816–1992. International Studies Review6(4): 107–133.
24.
MaozZRussettB (1993) Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review87(3): 624–638.
MousseauM (2009) The social market roots of democratic peace. International Security33(4): 52–86.
27.
OrganskiAFKKuglerJ (1980) The War Ledger. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
OwsiakAP (2012) Signing up for peace: International boundary agreements, democracy, and militarized interstate conflict. International Studies Quarterly56(1): 51–66.
29.
OwsiakAP (2013) Democratization and international border agreements. Journal of Politics75(3): 717–729.
30.
OwsiakAPVasquezJA (2019) The cart and the horse redux: The timing of border settlement and joint democracy. British Journal of Political Science49(1): 339–354.
31.
OwsiakAPVasquezJA (2021) Peaceful dyads: A territorial perspective. International Interactions47(6): 1040–1068.
32.
OwsiakAPCuttnerAKBuckB (2018) The international border agreements dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science35(5): 559–576.
33.
PalmerGD’OrazioVKenwickM, et al. (2015) The MID4 data set: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science32(2): 222–242.
PetterssonTÖbergM (2020) Organized violence, 1989–2019. Journal of Peace Research57(4): 597–613.
36.
RayJL (1995) Democracy and international conflict. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
37.
Ray JL (2003) A lakatosian view of the democratic peace research program: Does it falsify realism (or neorealism)? In: Elman MF and Elman C (eds) Progress in International Relations Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 205–244..
38.
ReedW (2000) A unified statistical model of conflict onset and escalation. American Journal of Political Science44(1): 84–93.
39.
ReiterD (2018) Is democracy a cause of peace? In: ThompsonWR (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Empirical International Relations Theory, Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 352–369.
40.
RosatoS (2003) The flawed logic of democratic peace theory. American Political Science Review97(4): 585–602.
41.
RummelRJ (1983) Libertarianism and international violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution27(1): 27–71.
42.
RussettBOnealJ (2001) Triangulating Peace. New York: W.W. Norton.
43.
SarkeesMRWaymanF (2010) Resort to War: 1816–2007. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
44.
SchenoniLLGoertzGOwsiakAP, et al. (2020) Settling resistant territorial disputes: The territorial boundary peace in Latin America. International Studies Quarterly64(1): 57–70.
45.
SenesePD (1996) Geographic proximity and issue salience: Their effects on the escalation of militarized interstate conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science15(2): 133–161.
46.
SenesePD (1997) Between dispute and war: The effect of joint democracy on interstate conflict escalation. Journal of Politics59(1): 1–27.
47.
SenesePDVasquezJA (2008) The Steps to War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
TillyC (ed.) (1975) The formation of nation states in Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
VasquezJA (1991) The deterrence myth. In: KegleyCWJr. (ed.) The Long Postwar Peace. New York: Harper Collins, pp. 205–223.
50.
VasquezJA (1993) The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
VasquezJA (2001) Mapping the probability of war and analyzing the possibility of peace: The role of territorial issues. Conflict Management and Peace Science18(2): 145–174.
52.
VasquezJA (2009) The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Vasquez JA (2018) Contagion and War: Lessons from the First World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press..
54.
VasquezJAHenehanMT (2001) Territorial disputes and the probability of war. Journal of Peace Research38(2): 123–138.
55.
ZagareFC (1986) The Dynamics of Deterrence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
ZagareFC (2011) The Games of July: Explaining the Great War. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
57.
ZagareFC (2019) Game Theory, Diplomatic History and Security Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
ZagareFCMarc KilgourD (2000) Perfect Deterrence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59.
ZornC (2005) A solution to separation in binary response models. Political Analysis13(2): 157–170.
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.
