The Conflict Management Efforts of Allies in Interstate Disputes

Abstract

Motivations for conflict management are rarely discussed in terms of commitments that potential third-parties have toward one or both disputants. The current study addresses this lacuna by examining how alliance designs affect conflict management behavior. Specifically, we argue that third-party states' willingness to manage interstate conflicts depends on both the existence and depth of an alliance relationship. We test this argument using data on conflict management within militarized interstate disputes during the period 1946-2000. We find that allies are more likely than non-allies to manage their partner's disputes. Underneath this aggregate relationship, however, we also find that the depth of alliance commitments strongly influences this behavior. Deeper commitments -both across and within alliance types -increase the likelihood of conflict management significantly.

Between indifference and coercion: Third-party intervention techniques in ongoing disputes

“…In the present case, however, the inclusion of a higher number of potential third parties is dictated by the fact that diplomatic and economic interventions can be carried out, even symbolically, by small, distant states. See Corbetta (2010, 2013) for further discussion, and Owsiak and Frazier (in press) for a similar argument concerning neutral conflict managers.…”

Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions

“…Similarity in traits promotes and is reinforced by positive relational ties such as alliances and trade. Positive relational ties are valuable to states, and third parties sharing connections with combatants in an ongoing conflict are more likely to have interests at stake that encourage voluntary involvement in an already challenging environment (Beardsley 2009;Melin and Svensson 2009;Owsiak and Frazier 2013). Relationships also help to build trust between the mediator and disputants (Kydd 2007;Rauchhaus 2006).…”

Forecasting conflict management in militarized interstate disputes

“…They might also offer to mediate a dispute (as the Organization of American States did during the Ecuador-Peru conflict described earlier). Scholars have not yet paid great attention to verbal interventions (for exceptions, however, see Frazier and Dixon, 2006;Melin, 2011Melin, , 2014Owsiak, 2014;Owsiak and Frazier, 2014). Yet including these is important.…”

“…Some studies, for example, consider conflict management that occurs within the context of international crises (e.g. Beardsley, 2011;Quinn et al, 2006), while others focus on conflict management within MIDs (Frazier and Owsiak, 2014;Melin, 2011). Although a seemingly minor point, crises and MIDs differ significantly from one another, suggesting that insights from one context may not apply to the other (Hewitt, 2003).…”