Search results

This book presents a collection of new and updated essays on what has come to be known as the territorial explanation of war.The book argues that a key both to peace and to war lies in understanding the role territory plays as a source of conflict and inter-group violence. Of all the issues that spark conflict, territorial disputes have the highest probability of escalating to war. War, however, is hardly inevitable; much depends on how territorial issues are handled. More importantly, settling territorial disputes and establishing mutually recognized boundaries can produce long periods of peace between neighbors, even if other salient issues arise. While territory is not the only cause of war and wars arise from other issues, territory is one of the main causes of war, and learning how to manage it, can, in principle, eliminate an entire class of wars. This book will be of great interest to all students of war and conflict studies, causes of war and peace, international security and strategic studies.John A. Vasquez is Thomas B. Mackie Scholar in International Relations at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He is author of The Steps to War (2008) (with Paul Senese) and The War Puzzle Revisited (2009). He has been president of the Peace Science Society (International) and the International Studies Association.Marie T. Henehan is Director of Internships and Lecturer, Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. She is author of Foreign Policy and Congress: An International Relations Perspective and co-editor of The Scientific Study of Peace and War.

Addresses the question of whether major war is declining. Rather than considering the numerical incidence of wars, we examine the probability of war taking place in different historical eras during the post-Napoleonic period to assess whether there is a pattern toward the ebbing of major state warfare & of interstate war in general. To estimate the probability of war, we examine the probability that a particular militarized interstate conflict will turn into a full-scale war. Additionally, we set up a control variable, which is the kind of dispute: territorial, policy, or regime. We take into account that the kind of dispute is significant, as previous literature has demonstrated that territorial conflicts are more likely to lead to war than are differences over regime or foreign policy. Tables. K. Coddon

This article provides a basic test of the territorial explanation of war, which maintains that territorial disputes are an important factor in increasing the probability of war. Using the `revision type' code in the Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) data, the war-proneness of territorial disputes is compared to that of policy and regime disputes in three data samples. Controls for pre-1946 and post-1945 and the status of states (major-major, major-minor, minor-minor) are also introduced. It is generally found that territorial disputes increase the probability of war and have a higher probability of going to war than other kinds of disputes. Policy disputes are less likely to result in war than would be expected by chance. Regime disputes appear to have a probability of escalating to war more than would be expected by chance only in two-party disputes involving minor-minor states or occurring in the post-1945 period.

"International Studies as a Discipline and Women's Status Therein" published on by Oxford University Press.