IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v36y2019i1p63-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew P. Owsiak

Abstract

The democratic and territorial peace arguments explain interstate peace via distinct mechanisms. Yet they can be integrated. I theoretically derive both the unique domains in which each argument might operate and the ways in which the two arguments might reinforce one another. An analysis of the period 1816–2001 demonstrates support for a more integrative approach. Within contiguous dyads, border settlement significantly reduces conflict, even for non-democratic dyads. Democratic dyads, however, experience no such effect in the absence of border settlement. Nonetheless, the democratic peace functions strongly in non-contiguous dyads, and even the most peaceful, contiguous dyads require both democracy and border settlement. Such findings offer a foundation for further theoretical development that integrates the two arguments.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew P. Owsiak, 2019. "Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(1), pages 63-87, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:36:y:2019:i:1:p:63-87
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894216650635
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894216650635
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894216650635?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. Paul D. Senese, 2005. "Territory, Contiguity, and International Conflict: Assessing a New Joint Explanation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 769-779, October.
    2. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    3. Schultz, Kenneth A., 1999. "Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 233-266, April.
    4. Thompson, William R., 1996. "Democracy and peace: putting the cart before the horse?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 141-174, January.
    5. repec:cup:apsrev:v:87:y:1993:i:03:p:624-638_27 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Fearon, James D., 1995. "Rationalist explanations for war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, July.
    7. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    8. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    9. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    10. Fazal, Tanisha M., 2004. "State Death in the International System," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 311-344, April.
    11. James Morrow & Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Randolph Siverson & Alastair Smith, 2006. "Selection institutions and war aims," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 31-52, January.
    12. Zacher, Mark W., 2001. "The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 215-250, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Brian Lai, 2004. "The Effects of Different Types of Military Mobilization on the Outcome of International Crises," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(2), pages 211-229, April.
    2. David Altman & Federico Rojas-de-Galarreta & Francisco Urdinez, 2021. "An interactive model of democratic peace," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 384-398, May.
    3. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita & Michael T. Koch & Randolph M. Siverson, 2004. "Testing Competing Institutional Explanations of the Democratic Peace: The Case of Dispute Duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(4), pages 255-267, September.
    4. Sam R. Bell, 2013. "What you don’t know can hurt you: Information, external transparency, and interstate conflict, 1982–1999," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(5), pages 452-468, November.
    5. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2001. "Attracting Trouble," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 794-817, December.
    6. Joe Clare & Vesna Danilovic, 2012. "Reputation for Resolve, Interests, and Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 3-27, February.
    7. Sam R. Bell, 2017. "Power, territory, and interstate conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 160-175, March.
    8. Seiki Tanaka, 2016. "The microfoundations of territorial disputes: Evidence from a survey experiment in Japan," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(5), pages 516-538, November.
    9. Choong-Nam Kang, 2017. "Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 546-571, September.
    10. David H. Clark & Patrick M. Regan, 2003. "Opportunities to Fight," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 94-115, February.
    11. Jelnov, Artyom & Tauman, Yair & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2018. "Confronting an enemy with unknown preferences: Deterrer or provocateur?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 124-143.
    12. Michael Mousseau, 2005. "Comparing New Theory with Prior Beliefs: Market Civilization and the Democratic Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 63-77, February.
    13. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    14. Shawna K. Metzger, 2017. "Time is on my side? The impact of timing and dispute type on militarized conflict duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 308-329, May.
    15. Johann Park, 2013. "Forward to the future? The democratic peace after the Cold War," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(2), pages 178-194, April.
    16. Matthew Fuhrmann & Sarah E. Kreps, 2010. "Targeting Nuclear Programs in War and Peace: A Quantitative Empirical Analysis, 1941-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(6), pages 831-859, December.
    17. Kim, Jin Yeub, 2018. "Counterthreat of attack to deter aggression," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 112-114.
    18. Randall J. Blimes, 2011. "International Conflict and Leadership Tenure," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Peter Bils & William Spaniel, 2017. "Policy bargaining and militarized conflict," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(4), pages 647-678, October.
    20. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Clayton L. Thyne, 2010. "Contentious Issues as Opportunities for Diversionary Behavior," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(5), pages 461-485, November.

    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:36:y:2019:i:1:p:63-87. 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.