IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ginixx/v21y1995i1p23-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The tyranny of distance: Redefining relevant dyads

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas Lemke

Abstract

Investigation of the causes of war requires analysis of the characteristics and behavior of only those dyads of countries that are potential belligerents. Several scholars have offered rules for delineating such “relevant dyads”. One common element of such rules is contiguity. A second common element is major power status. Any dyad involving either contiguous states or a major power is defined as relevant. Such definitions of relevant dyads are simple and useful. Nevertheless, I contend that some contiguous dyads are not relevant to study of the causes of war, while some non‐contiguous dyads are relevant. For example, Israel and Iraq are neither contiguous, nor major powers. With existing definitions this dyad is not deemed relevant. I offer an operational definition of relevant dyads that delineates which dyads are proximate enough in terms of distance and terrain to be potential war fighters, regardless of major or minor power status. Adapting existing work on the loss‐of‐strength gradient, I argue that each member of the international system has an area of the globe within which it can act militarily. This area is the relevant neighborhood of that country. Relevant‐dyads are found where relevant neighborhoods overlap.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas Lemke, 1995. "The tyranny of distance: Redefining relevant dyads," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 23-38.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ginixx:v:21:y:1995:i:1:p:23-38
    DOI: 10.1080/03050629508434858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03050629508434858
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03050629508434858?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nils B. Weidmann, 2009. "Geography as Motivation and Opportunity," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(4), pages 526-543, August.
    2. J Tyson Chatagnier & Haeyong Lim, 2021. "Does the WTO exacerbate international conflict?," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(5), pages 1068-1082, September.
    3. Halvard Buhaug, 2010. "Dude, Where’s My Conflict?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(2), pages 107-128, April.
    4. Stephen L. Quackenbush, 2006. "Identifying Opportunity for Conflict: Politically Active Dyads," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(1), pages 37-51, February.
    5. Andrew Shaver & David B. Carter & Tsering Wangyal Shawa, 2019. "Terrain ruggedness and land cover: Improved data for most research designs," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(2), pages 191-218, March.
    6. Michael W. Simon & Erik Gartzke, 1996. "Political System Similarity And The Choice of Allies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(4), pages 617-635, December.
    7. Douglas M. Stinnett & Jaroslav Tir & Paul F. Diehl & Philip Schafer & Charles Gochman, 2002. "The Correlates of War (Cow) Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3.0," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 19(2), pages 59-67, September.
    8. Steve Pickering, 2012. "Proximity, Maps and Conflict: New Measures, New Maps and New Findings," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(4), pages 425-443, September.
    9. Douglas Lemke & William Reed, 2001. "The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 126-144, February.
    10. Michele Coscia & Viridiana Rios, 2012. "How and where do criminals operate? Using Google to track Mexican drug trafficking organizations," CID Working Papers 57, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    11. Jonathan N Markowitz & Christopher J Fariss, 2018. "Power, proximity, and democracy," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 55(1), pages 78-93, January.
    12. Sebastian Schutte, 2017. "Geographic determinants of indiscriminate violence in civil wars," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(4), pages 380-405, July.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Kathryn Furlong & Nils Petter Gleditsch, 2003. "The Boundary Dataset," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 20(1), pages 93-117, February.

    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:taf:ginixx:v:21:y:1995:i:1:p:23-38. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GINI20 .

    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.