Borders, Rivalry, Democracy, and Conflict in the European Region, 1816-1994

Abstract

Should peace be attributed mainly to democracy or to some intervening variable that influences both democracy and conflict? A second, perhaps related question is whether or to what extent democratization is driven by external drivers of threat. If regime type helps explain external conflict, does external conflict also help explain regime type? By examining the relationships among strategic rivalry, unstable boundaries, democracy, and interstate conflict in a regional context, we find that rivalry and unstable boundaries are alternative manifestations of external threat. Both have significant, if not identical effects on stimulating interstate conflict. Regime type does not appear to have an independent effect on interstate conflict when we take either rivalries or unstable boundaries into consideration. At the same time, we also find that external threat indicators negatively predict changes in democratization. In short, greater threat is associated with less democratization.Explaining why states become involved in conflict is a core concern in the study of international relations. Explaining why states become more democratic is a core interest in the comparative study of politics. While we remain reluctant to combine these foci, we know much more today than we did 25-30 years ago about the factors encouraging or discouraging conflict and democracy. Yet there is always the possibility that some of what we think we know is not quite accurate. For instance, contentions about the democratic peace have been important drivers in improving our collective understanding of conflict processes. The focus has largely been placed on how democratic political systems and their decision-makers supposedly do things differently than autocratic political systems and their respective decision-makers. We can generate long lists of how regime types differ in international politics but we still don't agree on why regime type should make so much difference. One possibility at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on June 19, 2015 cmp.sagepub.com Downloaded from 1 Crescenzi and Enterline (1999: 93) conduct a time series investigation of the relationships between democracy, democratization, and interstate war from 1816 to 1992. They find that the statistical strength and sign of the relationships among these variables reflect strong spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Hence, they conclude that the regional level, rather than the global level, holds more promise for understanding the interrelationships between democratization and interstate conflict.

Democratization and International Border Agreements

“…He predicts both that interstate borders will frequently cause tension as a result of this territoriality and that settling these borders will transform relations between neighboring states. More specifically, Owsiak (2012) argues that we need not rely on proxy measures of settled borders when direct behavioral measures of the desired concept exist (see also Rasler and Thompson 2011). Gibler (2012), for example, argues that unsettled borders constitute a salient external threat that disappears after border settlement.…”

“…These categories follow the suggestion of the Polity IV project(Marshall and Jaggers 2009).11 For precise coding rules and examples, seeOwsiak (2012).12 Gibler(2012)uses more indirect (proxy) measures, some of which prevent one from knowing when to expect democratization. FollowingOwsiak (2012) andRasler and Thompson (2011), I therefore employ a direct measure, which produces clear expectations about democratization. See the online appendix for more information.13 I start with 169 states.…”

Signing Up for Peace: International Boundary Agreements, Democracy, and Militarized Interstate Conflict1

“…The case of Bolivia and Paraguay presents an interesting question: Can states usher in more peaceful relations with their neighbors by signing agreements that delineate their territorial boundaries? Theory suggests such a possibility (Vasquez 1993:123–152), and quantitative empirical research hints that a relationship of this type exists (Kocs 1995; Rasler and Thompson 2005, 2011; Gibler 2007). Empirical examples even support the idea.…”

“…Research design and measurement decisions inhibit the generalizability of these studies’ findings, in addition to raising concerns about whether such findings are unbiased. For example, recent works provide evidence restricted to one time period (for example, the post–World War II era—see Kocs 1995; Gibler 2007) or one region (for example, Europe—see Rasler and Thompson 2011). Further, some of these studies measure border settlement indirectly through the use of proxy variables (Gibler 2007).…”

“…I rely primarily on the territorial explanation of war as a foundation for my hypotheses, but I also consider the role of democracy as it relates to both settled borders and war. Recent research suggests an important connection between settled borders and democracy, making its inclusion theoretically relevant and timely (Rasler and Thompson 2005, 2011; Gibler 2007). Next, I describe the measurement of settled borders in detail, as well as how the current study’s research design differs from previous efforts.…”