Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:26:26.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conflict Management in Land, River, and Maritime Claims

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017


Why do disputants favor some conflict management strategies when managing certain territorial claim types—land, river, or maritime—but not others? We propose that state interests—defined via claim characteristics and interdependence—and transaction costs (i.e., the challenges associated with aggregating state preferences over outcomes) differ across claim types. These differences then incentivize states to cede varying levels of control over claim management, ultimately encouraging them to prioritize and institutionalize certain conflict management strategies when managing particular types of territorial claims. More specifically, we theorize and find that states pursue distinct management strategies when addressing their land (informal; bilateral negotiations and arbitration), river (more formal; third-party non-binding), and maritime claims (most formal; multilateral negotiations and legal processes).

Original Articles
© The European Political Science Association 2017 

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.)



Andrew P. Owsiak, Associate Professor, Department of International Affairs, University of Georgia, Third Floor, Candler Hall, Athens, GA 30606 ( Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, 341 Schaeffer Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242 University of Iowa ( The authors thank Mark Axelrod, Brian Phillips, Brandon Prins, and conference participants at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Peace Science Society International for their feedback on earlier drafts of this work. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit


Allee, Todd L., and Huth, Paul K.. 2006. ‘Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover’. American Political Science Review 100(2):219234.Google Scholar
Beardsley, Kyle. 2011. The Mediation Dilemma. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Beck, Lucas, Bernauer, Thomas, Siegfried, Tobias, and Bohmelt, Tobias. 2014. ‘Implications of Hydro-Political Dependency for International Water Cooperation and Conflict: Insights from New Data’. Political Geography 42:2333.Google Scholar
Bercovitch, Jacob, and Jackson, Richard. 2009. Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-First Century. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bohmelt, Tobias. 2015. ‘The Spatial Contagion of International Mediation’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 32(1):108127.Google Scholar
Bouchat, Clarence J. 2013. Dangerous Ground: The Spratly Islands and U.S. Interests and Approaches. Carlisle Barracks, PA: United States Army War College Press.Google Scholar
Brochmann, Marit, and Hensel, Paul R.. 2009. ‘Peaceful Management of International River Claims’. International Negotiation 14(2):391416.Google Scholar
Crescenzi, Mark J.C., Kadera, Kelly M., Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, and Thyne, Clayton L.. 2011. ‘A Supply Side Theory of Mediation’. International Studies Quarterly 55(4):10691094.Google Scholar
Dinar, Shlomi. 2009. ‘Asymmetry and Negotiations in International River Basins’. International Negotiation 14(2):329360.Google Scholar
Dixon, William J. 1996. ‘Third-Party Techniques for Preventing Conflict Escalation and Promoting Peaceful Settlement’. International Organization 50(4):653681.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994. ‘Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes’. American Political Science Review 88(3):577592.Google Scholar
Frazier, Derrick V., and Dixon, William. 2006. ‘Third-Party Intermediaries and Negotiated Settlements, 1946–2000’. International Interactions 32(4):385408.Google Scholar
Gent, Stephen E., and Shannon, Megan. 2010. ‘The Effectiveness of International Arbitration and Adjudication: Getting Into a Bind’. Journal of Politics 72(2):366380.Google Scholar
Gent, Stephen E., and Shannon, Megan. 2011. ‘Decision Control and the Pursuit of Binding Conflict Management: Choosing the Ties that Bind’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 55(5):710734.Google Scholar
Ghosn, Faten. 2010. ‘Getting to the Table and Getting to Yes: An Analysis of International Negotiations’. International Studies Quarterly 54(4):10551072.Google Scholar
Ghosn, Faten, Palmer, Glenn, and Bremer, Stuart A.. 2004. ‘The MID3 Dataset, 1993-2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 21(2):133154.Google Scholar
Greig, J. Michael. 2001. ‘Moments of Opportunity: Recognizing Conditions of Ripeness for International Mediation Between Enduring Rivals’. Journal of Conflict Management 45(6):691718.Google Scholar
Hensel, Paul R., Allison, Michael E., and Khanani, Ahmed. 2009. ‘Territorial Integrity Treaties and Armed Conflict Over Territory’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(2):120143.Google Scholar
Hensel, Paul R., and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. 2005. ‘Issue Indivisibility and Territorial Claims’. GeoJournal 64(4):275285.Google 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.Google Scholar
Hopmann, P. Terrence. 1996. The Negotiation Process and the Resolution of International Conflicts. Columbia, MO: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K., Croco, Sarah E., and Appel, Benjamin J.. 2011. ‘Does International Law Promote the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes? Evidence from the Study of Territorial Conflicts Since 1945’. American Political Science Review 105(2):415436.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K., and Allee, Todd L.. 2002. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Natalie. 2011. Maritime Security and the Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan. 2001. ‘The Rational Design of International Institutions’. International Organization 55(4):761799.Google Scholar
Kraska, James. 2011. Maritime Power and the Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., and Jaggers, Keith. 2009. Polity IV Dataset. College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, and Hensel, Paul R.. 2007. ‘International Institutions and Compliance With Agreements’. American Journal of Political Science 51(4):721737.Google Scholar
Nemeth, Stephen C., Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, Nyman, Elizabeth A., and Hensel, Paul R.. 2014. ‘Ruling the Sea: Managing Maritime Conflicts Through UNCLOS and Exclusive Economic Zones’. International Interactions 40(5):711736.Google Scholar
Owsiak, Andrew P. 2014. ‘Conflict Management Trajectories in Militarized Interstate Disputes: A Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Foundations’. International Studies Review 16(1):5078.Google Scholar
Prescott, Victor, and Triggs, Gillian D.. 2008. International Frontiers and Boundaries. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. ‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games’. International Organization 42(3):427460.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2002. ‘Capacity, Commitment, and Compliance: International Institutions and Territorial Disputes’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(6):829856.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David. 1988. ‘Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capabilities of States, 1816-1985’. International Interactions 14(2):115132.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, King, Gary, and Zeng, Langche. 2003. ‘ReLogit: Rare Events Logistic Regression’. Journal of Statistical Software 8(2):137163.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1997. ‘Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses’, A/RES/51/229. New York, 21 May 1997.Google Scholar
Zawahri, Neda A., and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. 2011. ‘Fragmented Governance of International Rivers: Negotiating Bilateral Versus Multilateral Treaties’. International Studies Quarterly 55(3):835858.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Owsiak and Mitchell supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Owsiak and Mitchell supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 173.9 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Owsiak and Mitchell Dataset