“…Overall, we view these data as an indication that the UNSC has become more attentive to civil conflict overall but not necessarily more attentive to the core concern of human rights violations, as far as these are captured by our proxies of civilian fatalities and refugees. Fitting time-varying coefficients models, an approach with increasing application in international relations (IR) (see, for example, Anderson, Mitchell and Schilling 2016), corroborates these patterns: Figure A4 in the Online Appendix shows that the association between battle deaths and attention as gradually increasing and is statistically significant from around 2005. Fig.…”
What explains why the United Nations Security Council meets and deliberates on some armed conflicts but not others? We advance a theoretical argument centred on the role of conflict externalities, state interests and interest heterogeneity. We investigate data on the Security Council's deliberation on armed conflicts in the 1989–2019 period and make three key findings: (1) conflicts that generate substantive military or civilian deaths are more likely to attract the Security Council's attention; (2) permanent members are varyingly likely to involve the Security Council when their interests are at stake; and (3) in contrast to the conventional wisdom, conflicts over which members have divergent interests are more likely to enter the agenda than other conflicts. The findings have important implications for debates about the Security Council's attention, responsiveness to problems and role in world politics.
“…Overall, we view these data as an indication that the UNSC has become more attentive to civil conflict overall but not necessarily more attentive to the core concern of human rights violations, as far as these are captured by our proxies of civilian fatalities and refugees. Fitting time-varying coefficients models, an approach with increasing application in international relations (IR) (see, for example, Anderson, Mitchell and Schilling 2016), corroborates these patterns: Figure A4 in the Online Appendix shows that the association between battle deaths and attention as gradually increasing and is statistically significant from around 2005. Fig.…”
What explains why the United Nations Security Council meets and deliberates on some armed conflicts but not others? We advance a theoretical argument centred on the role of conflict externalities, state interests and interest heterogeneity. We investigate data on the Security Council's deliberation on armed conflicts in the 1989–2019 period and make three key findings: (1) conflicts that generate substantive military or civilian deaths are more likely to attract the Security Council's attention; (2) permanent members are varyingly likely to involve the Security Council when their interests are at stake; and (3) in contrast to the conventional wisdom, conflicts over which members have divergent interests are more likely to enter the agenda than other conflicts. The findings have important implications for debates about the Security Council's attention, responsiveness to problems and role in world politics.
“…4.The IGO variable is problematic post-Cold War, often positively associated with MID occurrence. The reasons for this have been widely explored elsewhere (e.g., Anderson, Mitchell, and Schilling 2016) and, as demonstrated in robustness checks, have no substantive bearing on relevant results.…”
Interstate conflicts involving religion are commonly argued to be more severe and more protracted than other forms of conflict. Although various arguments have sought to explain religion's apparent contributions to global violence, few consider the foreign policy goals over which religious actors actually fight. This article does so by examining whether religiously-exclusive states tend to militarize interstate territorial disputes (MIDs) over issues of strategic material or identity salience. Insofar as religiously-exclusive states seek to “defend the faith” against internal and external challengers, identity-salient disputes should be a particularly attractive target for militarization. We however find the opposite. Although religiously-exclusive states do initiate territorial MIDs more frequently than their secular counterparts, they are significantly more likely to do so owing to disputed territories' strategic rather than symbolic value. These results challenge accepted wisdom regarding religion's influence on international conflict and suggest critical new avenues for research.
“…Other legs of the Kantian tripod for peace, however, do not witness accumulating peaceful effects. Shared membership in international organizations, for example, had its strongest pacifying effect on militarized disputes in the two decades following the Second World War, with declining and even conflict-inducing effects in the post-Cold War era (Anderson et al, 2016).…”
Section: Dangerous Bargains: What Is Missing?mentioning
Two theoretical perspectives, dangerous dyads and the bargaining model of war, have dominated theoretical discourse and empirical analyses in the Peace Science Society community for the past 25 years. This article discusses what we have learned about war from these approaches to the study of interstate and intrastate conflict. More critically, the piece examines what perspectives have been absent from Peace Science research and how these missing gaps influence the quantitative study of war and the diversity of the Peace Science community.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
