Journal of Peace Research · 2001 · 240 citations · 12 references
Social SciencesConflict StudiesPolitical ScienceArmed ConflictInternational Dispute SettlementMilitary HistoryInterstate ConflictInterstate WarIntra-state ConflictTerritorial DisputesMilitarized DisputesMilitarized Interstate DisputesMulti-party DisputesRepresentative SamplesTerritorial Dispute AnalysisTwo-party Bargaining
The territorial explanation of war posits that territorial disputes raise the likelihood of conflict. The study compares war‑proneness of territorial disputes to policy and regime disputes using MID revision type codes across three data samples, controlling for pre‑1946/post‑1945 periods and state status (major‑major, major‑minor, minor‑minor). Territorial disputes increase the probability of war more than other dispute types; policy disputes are less likely to lead to war than chance, while regime disputes only show elevated war risk in minor‑minor or post‑1945 cases.
This article provides a basic test of the territorial explanation of war, which maintains that territorial disputes are an important factor in increasing the probability of war. Using the `revision type' code in the Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) data, the war-proneness of territorial disputes is compared to that of policy and regime disputes in three data samples. Controls for pre-1946 and post-1945 and the status of states (major-major, major-minor, minor-minor) are also introduced. It is generally found that territorial disputes increase the probability of war and have a higher probability of going to war than other kinds of disputes. Policy disputes are less likely to result in war than would be expected by chance. Regime disputes appear to have a probability of escalating to war more than would be expected by chance only in two-party disputes involving minor-minor states or occurring in the post-1945 period.
12