The International Border Agreements Dataset

Owsiak, Andrew P.; Cuttner, Allison K.; Buck, Brent

doi:10.1177/0738894216646978

Cited by 35 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bolivia and Paraguay entered the international system with a mutual border that lacked clear delimitation, particularly in the Chaco region. They therefore tried repeatedly to define this border, but failed each time—despite reaching preliminary agreement on five separate occasions (Owsiak et al, 2016). As a result, the dispute festered, causing both states to perceive one another as rivals (i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Border settlement and the movement toward and from negative peace

Owsiak

Diehl²,

Goertz

2016

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does border settlement—that is, the management of salient territorial conflict—affect the prospects for negative peace? Using recently released data on dyadic interstate relationships during the period 1946–2001, we build on territorial peace research to argue, predict, and find three connections between border settlement and negative peace. More specifically, border settlement: (a) increases the likelihood that a dyad is at negative peace; (b) raises the likelihood that dyads transition from rivalry to negative peace relationships; and (c) consolidates negative peace—by impeding transitions toward rivalry relationships. We confirm each of these findings with a commonly used measure of border settlement, as well as an alternative indicator of unsettled borders: civil wars. These findings cumulatively support our argument, demonstrate the importance of studying relationships outside the rivalry context, and suggest that border settlement plays a critical role in the emergence and consolidation of negative peace.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Border settlement and the movement toward and from negative peace

Owsiak

Diehl²,

Goertz

2016

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historically, unsettled land borders have been the most dangerous for war (Owsiak 2012). Asia has more multilateral and maritime claims than other regions, but there are nevertheless ten unsettled land borders in the region: Russia-China; Afghanistan-Pakistan, Tajikistan-China, China-India; China-Bhutan; North Korea-South Korea; India-Bhutan; India-Pakistan; India-Bangladesh; Malaysia-Singapore (Owsiak, Cuttner, and Buck 2016).…”

Section: Militarized Disputes Territorial Claims and Other Negativementioning

confidence: 99%

What’s So Peaceful about Asian Peace?

Hoffman¹,

Diehl²,

Owsiak³

et al. 2018

AISR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work on an Asian peace has been imprecise on where, when, and why it occurs. This study examines different levels of state-based peace starting with the absence of war; unlike other treatments, however, we examine the incidence of civil war as well as the traditional interstate war. We then consider a more stringent threshold for peace, focusing on the absence or diminution of violent conflicts short of war, specifically incidents of militarized disputes and lesser conflicts. Finally, we look a broader conception of peace (“positive peace”) and examine all state relationships in Asia along a peace scale, which ranges from serious rivalries to negative peace to integrated security communities. Our findings indicate the strongest evidence for Asian peace with respect to avoiding interstate war. Nevertheless, there are significant conflicts involving violence and the threat of military force that persist in the region. A number of rivalries, many of them long-standing, continue to raise the specter of war. In addition, positive peace in Asia is rare for interstate relations and isolated to a few states for internal peace.

show abstract

“… 45 Owsiak 2012; Owsiak, Cuttner, and Buck 2016. Some dyads are missing due to a lack of historical information about border settlement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most notable missing data occurs among members of the former Soviet Union, as well as the Italian and German states prior to their respective unifications. See Owsiak, Cuttner, and Buck 2016.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Owsiak¹,

Vasquez

2016

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do democratic dyads handle their disputes more peacefully than non-democratic dyads, or have they cleared the most contentious issues (that is, unsettled borders) off their foreign policy agenda before becoming democratic? This study compares the conflicting answers of the democratic peace and the territorial peace and examines the empirical record to see which is more accurate. It finds that almost all contiguous dyads settle their borders before they become joint democracies. Furthermore, the majority of non-contiguous dyad members also settle their borders with all neighboring states before their non-contiguous dyad becomes jointly democratic. Such findings are consistent with the theoretical expectations of the territorial peace, rather than the democratic peace. They also weaken a core argument of the democratic peace, for this analysis finds that one reason democratic dyads may handle their disputes more peacefully than non-democratic dyads is not because of their institutions or norms, but rather because they have dispensed with the disputes most likely to involve the use of military force prior to becoming democratic.

show abstract

The International Border Agreements Dataset

Cited by 35 publications

References 32 publications

Border settlement and the movement toward and from negative peace

Border settlement and the movement toward and from negative peace

What’s So Peaceful about Asian Peace?

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About