Recent research on interstate conflict and rivalry has shown that most conflict occurs between long-time rival countries, and has used enduring rivalries to test propositions on arms races, deterrence, and power transitions. Yet most of this research has focused on the dynamics of already-established rivalry; little is known about how adversaries become long-term rivals. The present effort attempts to account for the origins of rivalry with an evolutionary model of interstate rivalry that treats rivalry as a dynamic process, evolving out of interactions between two adversaries. Empirical analyses reveal that the context of recent relations between two adversaries has a great influence on their conflict behavior, particularly on their probability of engaging in further conflict along the path toward or away from enduring rivalry. As two adversaries accumulate a longer history of conflict, their rivalry relationship tends to become "locked in" or entrenched, with future conflict becoming increasingly difficult to avoid; specific characteristics of their past confrontations can hasten or reverse this movement toward rivalry. This paper concludes by discussing the implications of this evolutionary model for the understanding of rivalry, conflict, and world politics more generally.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Azar, Edward E., Paul Jureidini, and Ronald McLaurin (1978). "Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Practice in the Middle East." Journal of Palestine Studies8, 1: 41-60.
2.
Bennett, D. Scott (1993). Security, Economy, and the End of Interstate Rivalry . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
3.
Bennett, D. Scott (1998). "Integrating and Testing Models of Rivalry Duration ." American Journal of Political Science42: 1200-1232.
4.
Brecher, Michael (1984). "International Crises, Protracted Conflicts." International Interactions11, 3-4: 237-298.
5.
Brecher, Michael, and Patrick James (1988). "Patterns of Crisis Management." Journal of Conflict Resolution32: 426-456.
6.
Diehl, Paul F. (1985). "Arms Races to War: Testing Some Empirical Linkages ." Sociological Quarterly26, 3: 331-349.
7.
Diehl, Paul F. (1992). "What Are They Fighting For? The Importance of Issues in International Conflict Research." Journal of Peace Research29, 3 (August): 333-344.
8.
Feste, Karen (1982). "International Enemies: A Review." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Cincinnati.
9.
Finlay, David J., Ole R. Holsti, and Richard R. Fagen (1967). Enemies in Politics. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
10.
Gaddis, John Lewis (1978). Russia, The Soviet Union, and the United States: An Interpretive History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
11.
Geller, Daniel (1993). "Power Differentials and War in Rival Dyads." International Studies Quarterly37, 2 (June): 173-194.
12.
Gochman, Charles S., and Russell J. Leng (1983). "Realpolitik and the Road to War: An Analysis of Attributes and Behavior." International Studies Quarterly27, 1 (March): 97-120.
13.
Gochman, Charles S., and Zeev Maoz (1984). "Militarized Interstate Disputes 1816-1976." Journal of Conflict Resolution28, 4 (December): 585-616.
14.
Goertz, Gary, and Paul F. Diehl (1992). "The Empirical Importance of Enduring Rivalries." International Interactions18, 2: 151-163.
15.
Goertz, Gary, and Paul F. Diehl (1993). "Enduring Rivalries: Theoretical Constructs and Empirical Patterns." International Studies Quarterly37, 2 (June): 147-171.
16.
Goertz, Gary, and Paul F. Diehl (1995a). "The Initiation and Termination of Enduring Rivalries: The Impact of Political Shocks." American Journal of Political Science39, 1 (February): 30-52.
17.
Goertz, Gary, and Paul F. Diehl (1995b). "Taking Enduring Out of Enduring Rivalry: The Rivalry Approach to War and Peace." International Interactions21, 3: 291-308.
18.
Goertz, Gary, and Paul F. Diehl (1998). "The 'Volcano Model' and Other Patterns in the Evolution of Enduring Rivalries." In P. F. Diehl, ed., The Dynamics of Enduring Rivalries. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 98-125.
19.
Hensel, Paul R. (1994). "One Thing Leads to Another: Recurrent Militarized Disputes in Latin America, 1816-1986." Journal of Peace Research31, 3 (August): 281-298.
20.
Hensel, Paul R. (1996). The Evolution of Interstate Rivalry. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
21.
Hensel, Paul R. (1998a). "Domestic Politics and Interstate Conflict." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
22.
Hensel, Paul R. (1998b). "Evolutionary Perspectives on Recurrent Conflict and Rivalry." Paper presented at the Conference on Evolutionary Perspectives on International Relations, Bloomington, IN, December 1998.
23.
Hensel, Paul R. (1999). "Contentious Issues and World Politics: Territorial Claims in the Americas, 1816-1996." Manuscript, Florida State University.
24.
Hensel, Paul R., and Sara McLaughlin (1996). "Power Transitions and Dispute Escalation in Evolving Interstate Rivalries." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association , San Francisco.
25.
Hensel, Paul R., and Thomas Sowers (1998). "Territorial Claims, Major Power Competition, and the Origins of Enduring Rivalry." Paper presented at the joint meeting of the International Studies Association and the European Standing Group on International Relations, Vienna.
26.
Huth, Paul K. (1988). Extended Deterrence and the Prevention of War . New Haven: Yale University Press .
27.
Huth, Paul K., and Bruce Russett (1993). "General Deterrence between Enduring Rivals: Testing Three Competing Models." American Political Science Review87, 1 (March): 61-73.
28.
Jervis, Robert (1976). Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
Jones, Daniel, Stuart Bremer, and J. David Singer (1996). "Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns." Conflict Management and Peace Science15: 163-213.
30.
Kugler, Jacek, and Douglas Lemke (1996). Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31.
Larson, Deborah Welch (1995). Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Leffler, Melvyn P., and David S. Painter, eds. (1994). Origins of the Cold War: An International History. London: Routledge.
33.
Leng, Russell J. (1983). "When Will They Ever Learn? Coercive Bargaining in Recurrent Crises." Journal of Conflict Resolution27, 3 (September): 379-419.
34.
Levy, Jack S., and T. Clifton Morgan (1984). "The Frequency and Seriousness of War." Journal of Conflict Resolution28, 4 (December): 731-749.
35.
Maoz, Zeev (1984). "Peace By Empire? Conflict Outcomes and International Stability, 1816-1976." Journal of Peace Research21, 3 (September): 227-241.
36.
Maoz, Zeev, and Nasrin Abdolali (1989). "Regime Types and International Conflict, 1816-1976." Journal of Conflict Resolution33: 3-35.
37.
Morgan, Patrick M. (1983). Deterrence: A Conceptual Analysis, rev. ed. Berkeley: Sage.
38.
Russett, Bruce (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Safran, Nadav (1969). From War to War: The Arab-Israeli Conflict. New York: Pegasus.
40.
Sowers, Thomas E., and Paul R. Hensel (1997). "Parity, Disputed Issues, and the Evolution of Interstate Rivalry." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Peace Science Society (International) , Indianapolis.
41.
Thompson, William R. (1995). "Principal Rivalries." Journal of Conflict Resolution39, 2 (June): 195-223.
42.
Ulam, Adam (1971). The Rivals: America and Russia Since World War II. New York: Penguin.
43.
Vasquez, John (1993). The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Wayman, Frank W. (1996). "Power Shifts and the Onset of War." In Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, eds., Parity and War. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press, pp. 145-162.
