Issue Conflict Accumulation and the Dynamics of Strategic Rivalry1

Abstract

Although states at times contend over a single issue (such as territory), international rivals often contend over multiple issues simultaneously. Issue conflicts tend to accumulate among rivals due to the development of enemy images of the “other,” which causes states to view as threatening, behavior that was previously viewed as non‐threatening. Once multiple issues are on the agenda, issues become linked as states begin to view the “other” as the main problem in settling all disagreements. Issue accumulation also increases the stakes of rivalry, which likely increases the probability that states will choose to bear the costs of engaging in militarized conflict seeking the settlement of issues in one’s favor. An examination of strategic rivals supports the expectations that issue conflict accumulation tends to increase the likelihood of militarized disputes and war. The results also reveal that some paths of issue accumulation, in which certain types of issues come under contention, tend to be more dangerous than others.

Exploring the Concept of Rivalry: From India and Pakistan to the Yankees and Red Sox

“…Some rivals contend over both spatial and positional issues simultaneously. Rivalries in which both spatial and positional issues are at stake tend to be particularly intense (see Dreyer 2010). India and Pakistan's rivalry, for example, which has been considerably more conflict prone than almost every other rivalry (Diehl et al 2005, 42), is rooted not only in competition concerning territory and national identity but also power position in the region (Paul 2005, 8).…”

Safe Across the Border: The Continued Significance of the Democratic Peace When Controlling for Stable Borders

“…In fact, Colaresi et al. (), Senese and Vasquez (), and Dreyer (), each using different research designs, find substantively meaningful effects for territorial issues. Recent work by Owsiak (), using a sample of contiguous states, finds parallel support both for the pacifying effect of democracy and bellicosity of territorial disputes.…”

Which wars spread? Commitment problems and military intervention

“…As general wars are characterized by military intervention, it may be that 4 Midlarsky (1990) argues general wars result from the accumulation of many disputes whereas dyadic wars result from single disputes. Yet work on rivalry has shown that dyadic wars within rivalries are a result of issue accumulation (Dreyer 2010), meaning the presence of multiple issues in and of itself is not sufficient to explain general wars. 5 The Steps to War research program (Vasquez 2009) offers an even more complicated model of war.…”