IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v46y2002i4p547-571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements

Author

Listed:
  • WILLIAM J. DIXON

    (Department of Political Science University of Arizona, Tucson)

  • PAUL D. SENESE

    (Department of Political Science University at Buffalo, SUNY)

Abstract

The argument that democracies are less belligerent toward one another because of their experience with mediation, negotiation, and compromise at the domestic level suggests that negotiated dispute settlements are more likely between relatively democratic states than other conflicting pairs. Militarized Interstate Dispute data and Polity IIId and Freedom House ratings of democracy are used to examine the propensities of disputants to resolve their grievances through negotiated means. Findings suggest a strong positive influence for mutual democracy. Specifically, the more democratic the less democratic member of a conflictual dyad, the more likely it is their dispute will be resolved through a negotiated settlement. This finding also holds across varying degrees of dyadic relative power and supports existing literature that chronicles the pacific conditioning power of democratic norms for several areas of interstate relations.

Suggested Citation

  • William J. Dixon & Paul D. Senese, 2002. "Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(4), pages 547-571, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:46:y:2002:i:4:p:547-571
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002702046004004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002702046004004
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002702046004004?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. John R. Oneal & Bruce Russett, 1999. "Is the liberal peace just an artifact of cold war interests? Assessing recent critiques," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 213-241, March.
    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. Reiter, Dan & Stam, Allan C., 1998. "Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(2), pages 377-389, June.
    4. Lake, David A., 1992. "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 24-37, March.
    5. Cederman, Lars-Erik, 2001. "Back to Kant: Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace as a Macrohistorical Learning Process," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 15-31, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Dixon, William J., 1996. "Third-party techniques for preventing conflict escalation and promoting peaceful settlement," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 653-681, October.
    8. Signorino, Curtis S., 1999. "Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 279-297, June.
    9. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Morrow, James D. & Siverson, Randolph M. & Smith, Alastair, 1999. "An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 791-807, 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. Conconi, Paola & Sahuguet, Nicolas & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2018. "Electoral incentives, term limits, and the sustainability of peace," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 15-26.
    2. Morad Benyoucef & Marie-Hélène Verrons, 2008. "Configurable e-negotiation systems for large scale and transparent decision making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 211-224, May.

    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. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Renato Corbetta & William J. Dixon, 2005. "Danger Beyond Dyads: Third-Party Participants in Militarized Interstate Disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 39-61, February.
    4. Chojnacki, Sven, 2003. "Demokratien und Krieg: Das Konfliktverhalten demokratischer Staaten im internationalen System, 1946-2001," Discussion Papers, Research Group International Politics P 03-304, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Kenneth A. Schultz, 2001. "Looking for Audience Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 32-60, February.
    6. James Lee Ray, 2001. "Integrating Levels of Analysis in World Politics," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 355-388, October.
    7. Brian Lai & Dan Reiter, 2000. "Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816-1992," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(2), pages 203-227, April.
    8. David H. Bearce & Eric O'N. Fisher, 2002. "Economic Geography, Trade, and War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 365-393, June.
    9. Nakao, Keisuke, 2022. "Democratic Victory and War Duration: Why Are Democracies Less Likely to Win Long Wars?," MPRA Paper 112849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    11. Vesperoni, Alberto & Wärneryd, Karl, 2016. "Democracy and International Conflict," SSE Working Paper Series in Economics 2016:1, Stockholm School of Economics.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Ely Ratner, 2009. "Reaping What You Sow," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(3), pages 390-418, June.
    15. Petersen Karen K., 2008. "There is More to the Story than 'Us-Versus-Them': Expanding the Study of Interstate Conflict and Regime Type Beyond a Dichotomy," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 62-96, April.
    16. William Reed & David H. Clark, 2000. "War Initiators and War Winners," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(3), pages 378-395, June.
    17. 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.
    18. H. E. Goemans, 2000. "Fighting for Survival," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(5), pages 555-579, October.
    19. Jacob Ausderan, 2018. "Reassessing the democratic advantage in interstate wars using k-adic datasets," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(5), pages 451-473, September.
    20. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2001. "Attracting Trouble," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 794-817, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jocore:v:46:y:2002:i:4:p:547-571. 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.