Can states usher in more peaceful relations with their neighbors by signing agreements that delineate their territorial boundaries? Theory suggests such a possibility, but the empirical evidence to date remains limited by research design and variable measurement decisions. After assembling a new data set on international boundary agreements, the current study conducts the first thorough test of this question during the period 1816-2001. The findings indicate that once neighboring states settle their borders, they are less likely to go to war or experience militarized interstate disputes with one another. These pacific effects persist across numerous time periods even after controlling for joint democracy, a characteristic that both theory and this analysis show to be positively related to settled borders. Through these findings, the study suggests that signing international boundary agreements can bring neighbors a more peaceful relationship with one another, regardless of the characteristics of their respective governmental regimes.
When multiple third parties intervene diplomatically in the same dispute, are their interventions interdependent? Although theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that they are, most conflict management research fails to theorize about and model this interdependence directly. The current project breaks with this tradition by advancing the new concept of a conflict management trajectory-the idea that conflict management efforts evolve over the course of a conflict and successive efforts inform one another. After discussing the rationale for and theoretical foundations underlying trajectories, I construct these trajectories empirically, summarize and discuss some of their characteristics, and create a typology to describe and organize them. In the process, I demonstrate that trajectories possess properties that clearly differentiate them from isolated interventions (the alternative) and display numerous general patterns. Each of these, in turn, suggests that trajectories deserve greater study as we seek to integrate and expand our understanding of international conflict management.
Does the removal of salient external threats foster democratization? Recent research proposes an affirmative answer but either fails to examine democratization at the monadic level, to consider small-scale democratization, or to account for factors known to influence the democratization process. The current study addresses this deficit by (re)examining democratization during the period 1919-2006. The findings suggest a strong relationship between border settlement and democratization. A state that settles all of its interstate borders democratizes; any outstanding unsettled borders, however, prevent significant democratization. Furthermore, although border settlement contributes to democratization, it does not significantly affect democratic regime change. This empirical evidence cumulatively specifies a more precise relationship between external threat and democratization than previous work and thereby contributes directly to the recent debate between the territorial and democratic peace theories. It also suggests that democratization may proceed more readily if states address unsettled borders first.
We introduce a dataset that focuses on the delimitation of interstate borders under international law-the International Border Agreements Dataset (IBAD). This dataset contains information on the agents involved in (e.g. states, third-parties, and colonial powers), methods used during (e.g. negotiation, mediation, arbitration, adjudication, administrative decrees, post-war conferences, and plebiscites), and outcomes of (e.g. full and intermediate agreements) the border settlement process during the period 1816-2001. Our focus on international legal agreements and the process that produces them makes the IBAD valuable for those that study not only territorial conflict, but also international conflict, cooperation, law, and conflict management.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.