Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-2p87r Total loading time: 0.245 Render date: 2021-10-17T07:10:23.103Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2016

Abstract

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.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of International Affairs, University of Georgia (email: aowsiak@uga.edu); Department of Political Science, University of Illinois (email: vasqueja@illinois.edu). The title for this article derives from one published by William Thompson in International Organization in 1996. We thank Jeff Berejikian, Chad Clay, Paul Diehl, Emilia Powell, Toby Rider, the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their feedback, as well as Patrick Howell and Cody Knapp for their research assistance. Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123416000533.

References

Biger, Gideon. 1995. The Encyclopedia of International Boundaries. New York: Facts on File.Google Scholar
Brecher, Michael, and Wilkenfeld, Jonathan. 2000. A Study of Crisis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Smith, Alastair, Siverson, Randolph M., and Morrow, James D.. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce D., Morrow, James D., Siverson, Randolph, and Smith, Alastair. 1999. An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review 93 (4):791807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, Steve. 2012. Programmatic Research on the Democratic Peace. In Guide to the Scientific Study of International Processes, edited by Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Paul F. Diehl and James D. Morrow, 115134. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clay, K. Chad, and Owsiak, Andrew P.. 2016. The Diffusion of International Border Agreements. Journal of Politics 78 (2):427442.Google Scholar
Colaresi, Michael P., Rasler, Karen, and Thompson, William R.. 2007. Strategic Rivalries in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Correlates of War Project. 2008. State System Membership. Available from http://http://correlatesofwar.org/, accessed 2 November 2016.Google Scholar
Dafoe, Allan, Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce. 2013. The Democratic Peace: Weighing the Evidence and Cautious Inference. International Studies Quarterly 57 (1):201214.Google Scholar
Epstein, David L., Bates, Robert, Goldstone, Jack, Kristensen, Ida, and O’Halloran, Sharyn. 2006. Democratic Transitions. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):551569.Google Scholar
Gartzke, Erik, and Weisiger, Alex. 2013. Permanent Friends? Dynamic Difference and the Democratic Peace. International Studies Quarterly 57 (1):171185.Google Scholar
Ghosn, Faten, Palmer, Glenn, and Bremer, Stuart A.. 2004. The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description. Conflict Management and Peace Science 21 (2):133154.Google Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M. 2012. The Territorial Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M. 2014. Contiguous States, Stable Borders, and the Peace Between Democracies. International Studies Quarterly 58 (1):126129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M., and Tir, Jaroslav. 2010. Settled Borders and Regime Type: Democratic Transitions as Consequences of Peaceful Territorial Transfers. American Journal of Political Science 54 (4):951968.Google Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M., and Tir, Jaroslav. 2014. Territorial Peace and Democratic Clustering. Journal of Politics 76 (1):2740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M., and Miller, Steven V.. 2012. Quick Victories? Territory, Democracies, and Their Disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution 57 (2):258284.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Kristian S., and Ward, Michael D.. 2006. Diffusion and the International Context of Democratization. International Organization 60 (4):911933.Google Scholar
Gowa, Joanne. 2011. The Democratic Peace After the Cold War. Economics and Politics 23 (2):153171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, Paul R. 2001. Contentious Issues and World Politics: The Management of Territorial Claims in the Americas, 1816–1992. International Studies Quarterly 45 (1):81109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, Paul R., Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, Sowers, Thomas E., and Thyne, Clayton L.. 2008. Bones of Contention: Comparing Territorial, Maritime, and River Issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (1):117143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, J. Joseph. 2003. Dyadic Processes and International Crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution 47 (5):669692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, Marc L., and Gibler, Douglas M.. 2007. Political Tolerance and Territorial Threat: A Cross-National Study. Journal of Politics 69 (1):128142.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K., and Allee, Todd. 2002. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
James, Patrick, Park, Johann, and Choi, Seung-Whan. 2006. Democracy and Conflict Management: Territorial Claims in the Western Hemisphere Revisited. International Studies Quarterly 50 (4):803818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocs, Stephen A. 1995. Territorial Disputes and Interstate War, 1945–1987. Journal of Politics 57 (1):159175.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce. 1993. Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986. The American Political Science Review 87 (3):624638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., and Jaggers, Keith. 2009. Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2006. Polity IV Project. Available from http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity4.htm.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, and Prins, Brandon C.. 1999. Beyond Territorial Contiguity: Issues at Stake in Democratic Militarized Interstate Disputes. International Studies Quarterly 43 (1):169183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, James D., de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, Siverson, Randolph M., and Smith, Alastair. 2006. Selection Institutions and War Aims. Economics of Governance 7 (1):3152.Google Scholar
Owsiak, Andrew P. 2012. Signing Up for Peace: International Boundary Agreements, Democracy, and Militarized Interstate Conflict. International Studies Quarterly 56 (1):5166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owsiak, Andrew P. 2013. Democratization and International Border Agreements. Journal of Politics 75 (3):717729.Google Scholar
Owsiak, Andrew P. 2016. Foundations for Integrating the Democratic and Territorial Peace Arguments. Conflict Management and Peace Science, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Owsiak, Andrew P., Cuttner, Allison K., and Buck, Brent. 2016. The International Border Agreements Dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Park, Johann. 2013. Forward to the Future? The Democratic Peace After the Cold War. Conflict Management and Peace Science 30 (2):178194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Johann, and Colaresi, Michael. 2014. Safe Across the Border: The Continued Significance of the Democratic Peace When Controlling for Stable Borders. International Studies Quarterly 58 (1):118125.Google Scholar
Park, Johann, and James, Patrick. 2015. Democracy, Territory, and Armed Conflict, 1919–1995. Foreign Policy Analysis 11 (1):85107.Google Scholar
Rasler, Karen, and Thompson, William R.. 2012. War Making and State Making: How and Where Does It Fit into the Bigger Picture?. In What Do We Know About War? edited by John A. Vasquez, 237256. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Reed, William. 2000. A Unified Statistical Model of Conflict Onset and Escalation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (1):8493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce, and Oneal, John. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organization. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2005. Rules Over Real Estate: Trade, Territorial Conflict, and International Borders as Institutions. Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (6):823848.Google Scholar
Stinnett, Douglas M., Tir, Jaroslav, Schafer, Philip, Diehl, Paul F., and Gochman, Charles. 2002. The Correlates of War Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3. Conflict Management and Peace Science 19 (2):5866.Google Scholar
Thompson, William R. 1996. Democracy and Peace: Putting the Cart Before the Horse? International Organization 50 (1):141174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1990. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 2009. The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasquez, John A., and Barrett, Emily E.. 2015. Peace as the Absence of Militarized Conflict: Comparing the Democratic and Territorial Peace. Journal of Territorial and Maritime Disputes 2 (1):532.Google Scholar
Zacher, Mark W. 2001. The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force. International Organization 55 (2):215250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Owsiak and Vasquez Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Owsiak and Vasquez supplementary material

Appendix

Download Owsiak and Vasquez supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 171 KB
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *