IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v23y2006i4p267-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Third Party Characteristics, Territory and the Mediation of Militarized Interstate Disputes

Author

Listed:
  • Derrick V. Frazier

    (Department of Political Science University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois, USA, dvfrazie@uiuc.edu)

Abstract

In an effort to contribute to our knowledge of managing territorial disputes, I demonstrate the effects of territory on third party initiated mediation. My findings suggest that previous arguments regarding territorial disputes and mediation are too simplistic. Explaining the effects of territory without consideration of third party characteristics and interaction terms leads to a completely different set of conclusions about the nature of territorial disputes than when these two sets of variables are considered. An analysis of the two different empirical models suggests strong linkages between third party interests and territorial disputes compared to disputes over other issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Derrick V. Frazier, 2006. "Third Party Characteristics, Territory and the Mediation of Militarized Interstate Disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(4), pages 267-284, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:23:y:2006:i:4:p:267-284
    DOI: 10.1080/07388940600972628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/07388940600972628
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07388940600972628?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mansfield, Edward D. & Pevehouse, Jon C., 2000. "Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(4), pages 775-808, October.
    2. J. Michael Greig, 2005. "Stepping Into the Fray: When Do Mediators Mediate?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(2), pages 249-266, April.
    3. Dixon, William J., 1994. "Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 14-32, March.
    4. Fordham, Benjamin O., 1998. "Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era U.S. Foreign Policy," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 359-396, April.
    5. Mark Gasiorowski & Solomon W. Polachek, 1982. "Conflict and Interdependence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(4), pages 709-729, December.
    6. Siverson, Randolph M. & Starr, Harvey, 1990. "Opportunity, Willingness, and the Diffusion of War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 47-67, March.
    7. Charles H. Anderton & John R. Carter, 2001. "The Impact of War on Trade: An Interrupted Times-Series Study," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 38(4), pages 445-457, July.
    8. Gartzke, Erik & Li, Quan & Boehmer, Charles, 2001. "Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 391-438, April.
    9. Ott, Marvin C., 1972. "Mediation as a Method of Conflict Resolution: Two Cases," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 595-618, October.
    10. Morgenthau, Hans J., 1952. "Another “Great Debate”: The National Interest of the United States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(4), pages 961-988, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lin Scott Y. & Seiglie Carlos, 2014. "Same Evidences, Different Interpretations – A Comparison of the Conflict Index between the Interstate Dyadic Events Data and Militarized Interstate Disputes Data in Peace-Conflict Models," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 347-372, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tobias Böhmelt, 2010. "The Impact of Trade on International Mediation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(4), pages 566-592, August.
    2. Chang, Yuan-Ching & Polachek, Solomon W. & Robst, John, 2004. "Conflict and trade: the relationship between geographic distance and international interactions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 491-509, September.
    3. Lingyu Lu & Cameron G. Thies, 2010. "Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(4), pages 347-368, September.
    4. Edward D. Mansfield & Brian M. Pollins, 2001. "The Study of Interdependence and Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 834-859, December.
    5. Kyle Beardsley, 2008. "Agreement without Peace? International Mediation and Time Inconsistency Problems," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 723-740, October.
    6. Michelle A. Benson, 2005. "The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads in the Study of Interdependence and Dyadic Disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 113-133, April.
    7. HÃ¥vard Hegre, 2004. "Size Asymmetry, Trade, and Militarized Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 403-429, June.
    8. Melin, Molly M., 2016. "Business, peace, and world politics: The role of third parties in conflict resolution," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 493-501.
    9. Tobias Böhmelt, 2015. "The spatial contagion of international mediation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(1), pages 108-127, February.
    10. Massoud Tansa G. & Magee Christopher S., 2012. "Trade and Political, Military, and Economic Relations," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-39, May.
    11. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2006. "Power Positions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(1), pages 3-27, February.
    12. Reuven Glick & Alan M. Taylor, 2010. "Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption and the Economic Impact of War," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 102-127, February.
    13. Francesco Amodio & Leonardo Baccini & Michele Di Maio, 2021. "Security, Trade, and Political Violence," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-37.
    14. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.
    15. Yue Lu & Wei Gu & Ka Zeng, 2021. "Does the Belt and Road Initiative Promote Bilateral Political Relations?," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 29(5), pages 57-83, September.
    16. HÃ¥vard Hegre, 2009. "Trade Dependence or Size Dependence?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(1), pages 26-45, February.
    17. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2012. "War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 257-278, July.
    18. David B Carter, 2017. "History as a double-edged sword," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 16(4), pages 400-421, November.
    19. Han Dorussen, 2006. "Heterogeneous Trade Interests and Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(1), pages 87-107, February.
    20. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Jana von Stein & Erik Gartzke, 2008. "International Organizations Count," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(2), pages 175-188, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:23:y:2006:i:4:p:267-284. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.