The Cart and the Horse Redux: The Timing of Border Settlement and Joint Democracy

Conflict Management and Peace Science

2016

Self Cite

The democratic and territorial peace arguments explain interstate peace via distinct mechanisms. Yet they can be integrated. I theoretically derive both the unique domains in which each argument might operate and the ways in which the two arguments might reinforce one another. An analysis of the period 1816-2001 demonstrates support for a more integrative approach. Within contiguous dyads, border settlement significantly reduces conflict, even for non-democratic dyads. Democratic dyads, however, experience no such effect in the absence of border settlement. Nonetheless, the democratic peace functions strongly in non-contiguous dyads, and even the most peaceful, contiguous dyads require both democracy and border settlement. Such findings offer a foundation for further theoretical development that integrates the two arguments.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Territorial Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments

Conflict Management and Peace Science

2016

Self Cite

“…Indeed, over 200 years of history, this pattern has few exceptions. Border settlement almost always precedes joint democracy (Owsiak and Vasquez, 2019; see also Gibler and Owsiak, 2018). Such findings, when combined with this study's conclusions, imply that the territorial peace might subsume the democratic peace—explaining peace not only within a large percentage of democratic dyads, but within a large percentage of non-democratic dyads as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gibler's argument has passed a series of tests (see Gibler and Braithwaite, 2013;Gibler and Owsiak, 2018;Gibler and Tir, 2014;Owsiak, 2012Owsiak, , 2013Owsiak and Vasquez, 2019). It also has led to noteworthy theoretical extensions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why don’t democracies fight each other? The role of territorial issues

Conflict Management and Peace Science

Vasquez

2023

Why don't democracies fight each other? Since discovering this empirical regularity, scholars have assumed that the answer must lie with regime type (i.e. democracy). Our paper provides and tests an alternative explanation: the territorial explanation of war, which stresses grievances and argues that territorial issues incentivize states to resort to war more often than disagreements over other, non-territorial issues. We show that democracies do not generally have territorial militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) or the territorial claims that would produce territorial MIDs. Democracies are peaceful because they lack the most dangerous grievances in the international system.

“…To address this possibility, we examine sequencing before both the first border agreement working toward full settlement and full settlement of the border within contiguous dyads (see also Owsiak and Vasquez 2016). Doing so provides a conservative empirical test.…”

Section: What Is the Relationship Between Settled Borders And Democracy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy and the Settlement of International Borders, 1919 to 2001

Gibler

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2017

Self Cite

There is increasing evidence that territorial conflict is associated with centralized and nondemocratic regimes. We explore whether this relationship is due to the facility of democratic regimes to settle their international borders. Using Owsiak’s data set on border settlement processes, we find little evidence that democratic regimes are more likely than other types of regimes to settle their borders. In fact, joint democracy rarely precedes the first border agreement or full settlement of the border, and there is almost no qualitative evidence suggesting a link between democracy and border settlement in the rare instances of successful agreements. Democracies are also not more likely to keep their borders settled or even to be more peaceful during settled-border years. Overall, our findings suggest that border settlements lead to peace in the dyad and affirm a clear temporal sequence of border settlement, then peace and democracy for neighboring dyads.