Enduring Rivalries: The Early Years

Maoz, Zeev; Mor, Ben D.

doi:10.1177/019251296017002002

Cited by 52 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 Rivalries, then, may last indefinitely, while their related periods of actual militarized conflict may not. Maoz and Mor (1996) show that the highest likelihood of armed conflict coincides with the early years of a rivalry. Rival states experience abnormally high levels of armed engagement during the initial formation of the rivalry, and Maoz and Mor's analysis suggests that they may settle into less conflictual patterns afterward.…”

Section: Rivalries and The Probability Of Armed Conflictmentioning

confidence: 94%

Interstate Rivalry and Terrorism

Conrad

2011

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing scholarly research on terrorism has largely ignored the role of international relations and its effects on patterns of terrorism. This study argues that strategic interstate relationships can affect the amount of terrorism that a state experiences and should be considered along with ''traditional'' determinants of terrorism, such as domestic institutional and macroeconomic variables. The study specifically looks at state sponsorship of terrorism, arguing that while we cannot reliably identify state sponsors of terror, we can indirectly observe relevant evidence of state sponsorship. To support this claim, the study examines the annual number of transnational terrorist attacks that occurred in all countries during the period 1975-2003. The results demonstrate that states involved in ongoing rivalries with other states are the victims of more terrorist attacks than states that are not involved in such hostile interstate relationships.

show abstract

Section: Rivalries and The Probability Of Armed Conflictmentioning

confidence: 94%

Interstate Rivalry and Terrorism

Conrad

2011

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Repeated wars between enduring rivals are influenced by a learning process, in which opponent states revise their perception of each other. Within an evolutionary perspective, early years of enduring rivalry are characterized by greater incidents of wars, while learning and changes in national capabilities contribute to reducing war incidents in latter stages of the rivalry (Maoz, 1996).…”

Section: Synthetic Conceptualizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual Descriptors of Enduring Interstate Rivalry: The Unremitting Conflict in the Middle East

Alghafli¹

2015

JGPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the multiple concepts commonly used to designate lingering interstate conflicts, and proposes an integrative conceptual approach that synthesizes components introduced by 'protracted conflict' and 'enduring rivalry' conceptualizations. Facts and events pertaining to the Middle East conflict before and after the introduction of the peace process are interpreted through three conceptually-driven propositions suggested by the integrative approach. In addition to validating the characteristic longevity of the Middle East conflict, the proposed integrative approach facilitates understanding major events of interstate and domestic violence in the region, ascertains the role of nongovernmental forces in maintaining the endurance of interstate rivalries, and identifies the geographic enlargement of the conflict.

show abstract

“…First, where most research on interstate conflict examines isolated incidents, rivalries are fundamentally about sustained hostility; in other words, rivalry involves both significant animosity and an inability to resolve differences, either through conflict or negotiation (Hensel 1996;Maoz and Mor 1996). Second, extant research on institutional similarity arguments has only examined the militarized interstate dispute (MID) data.…”

Section: Rivalry Framework and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regime Similarity and Rivalry

Conrad

Souva

2011

International Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Explanations for the democratic peace have developed along two broad lines: those that focus on democratic-specific mechanisms and those that focus on institutional similarity mechanisms. We test these competing mechanisms against each other by examining a range of regime types and a variety of institutional mechanisms, and for the first time, test them in logistic multiple regression models of rivalry onset using three rivalry datasets. Our comparative test of the two approaches largely justifies democratic-specific explanations for the democratic peace. That is, more than any other regime pairing, two democracies are less likely to engage in a rivalry. We also find some evidence that socialist single-party dyads are less likely to experience rivalry than other dyads, but overall the support for a broader institutional similarity peace is quite limited. KEYWORDS autocratic peace, democratic peace, regime similarity, rivalryIs the democratic peace part of a larger institutional similarity peace? The democratic peace is an empirical observation that democracies rarely fight each other. In light of this observation, theorists initially advanced democratic-specific arguments that explain the democratic peace through features and phenomena unique to democratic societies and institutions (see e.g.

show abstract

Enduring Rivalries: The Early Years

Cited by 52 publications

References 17 publications

Interstate Rivalry and Terrorism

Interstate Rivalry and Terrorism

Conceptual Descriptors of Enduring Interstate Rivalry: The Unremitting Conflict in the Middle East

Regime Similarity and Rivalry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About