Signing Up for Peace: International Boundary Agreements, Democracy, and Militarized Interstate Conflict1
In: International studies quarterly: the journal of the International Studies Association, Band 56, Heft 1, S. 51-67
ISSN: 0020-8833, 1079-1760
5 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: International studies quarterly: the journal of the International Studies Association, Band 56, Heft 1, S. 51-67
ISSN: 0020-8833, 1079-1760
In: International studies quarterly: the journal of the International Studies Association, Band 56, Heft 1, S. 51-66
ISSN: 1468-2478
Can states usher in more peaceful relations with their neighbors by signing agreements that delineate their territorial boundaries? Theory suggests such a possibility, but the empirical evidence to date remains limited by research design and variable measurement decisions. After assembling a new data set on international boundary agreements, the current study conducts the first thorough test of this question during the period 1816-2001. The findings indicate that once neighboring states settle their borders, they are less likely to go to war or experience militarized interstate disputes with one another. These pacific effects persist across numerous time periods even after controlling for joint democracy, a characteristic that both theory and this analysis show to be positively related to settled borders. Through these findings, the study suggests that signing international boundary agreements can bring neighbors a more peaceful relationship with one another, regardless of the characteristics of their respective governmental regimes. Adapted from the source document.
In: International Studies Quarterly, Band 56, Heft 1, S. 51-66
In: Peace & change: PC ; a journal of peace research, Band 37, Heft 2, S. 195-226
ISSN: 1468-0130
Once the Cold War ended, the international community expanded the mandates given to its peace operations. Traditional thinking suggests that this trend occurred because of an increase in the number and a shift in the type of conflicts prevalent in the international system. This "demand side" explanation argues that as predominant conflict in the system changes from interstate to intrastate, the tasks shift accordingly from traditional peacekeeping to peacebuilding. Despite the persistence of this argument, no systematic studies exist that empirically test its validity. Considering conflict and peace operation patterns since 1945, we analyze whether conflict occurrence, conflict type, negotiated agreements, and international intervention changed fundamentally after the Cold War. We find that patterns of interstate and intrastate conflicts provide some limited support for this demand side argument, but the greatest support comes from the proliferation of negotiated agreements that terminate conflicts, in which disputants often request peacebuilding assistance.
In: Peace & change: a journal of peace research, Band 37, Heft 2, S. 195-227
ISSN: 0149-0508