The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge Studies in International Relations, Series Number 82)

This book presents a systematic reassessment of the theoretical and empirical foundations of the democratic peace literature. Three distinct theoretical models of how domestic political institutions shape the foreign policy choices of state leaders are developed and Huth and Allee then test hypotheses from each model against an original data set of 348 territorial disputes from 1919–95. Each territorial dispute is divided into three separate but related phases for empirical analysis: Challenge the Status Quo Stage, Negotiation Stage and Military Escalation Stage. Their statistical results provide strong support for the importance of democratic accountability and norms in shaping decisions to negotiate and settle disputes as well as to threaten force and escalate to war. The findings of this book address central debates and provide many insights into understanding when and why democratic leaders engage in cooperative or confrontational foreign policies. Cover......Page 1 Half-title......Page 3 Series-title......Page 5 Title......Page 7 Copyright......Page 8 Dedication......Page 9 Contents......Page 11 Figures......Page 12 Tables......Page 13 Acknowledgments......Page 19 Introduction......Page 21 The debate over norms vs. institutional accountability......Page 26 The puzzle of intra-regime variation in conflict behavior......Page 29 The debate over audience costs and democratic institutions......Page 32 The debate over the strategic behavior of democratic states in disputes with non-democratic states......Page 33 The debate over international-level vs. domestic-level explanations of foreign policy behavior......Page 36 What are the challenges for democratic leaders when managing disputes with authoritarian regimes?......Page 38 The interests of third parties in questions of war and peace over disputed territory......Page 39 Dyadic studies......Page 40 An alternative research design......Page 46 Territorial disputes and testing the democratic peace......Page 50 Conclusion......Page 52 Alternative paths to conflict and cooperation......Page 54 Analyzing territorial disputes......Page 64 The decision to challenge the status quo......Page 65 The decision to concede in negotiations......Page 69 The decision to escalate and risk war......Page 71 Conclusion......Page 75 A model of international politics......Page 76 Premise 1: International anarchy and the pursuit of foreign policy goals......Page 77 Premise 2: The value of relative military strength......Page 78 Premise 3: Uncertainty in estimating the military strength and resolve of adversaries......Page 79 Hypotheses......Page 80 Measurement of variables for empirical tests......Page 83 Military balance......Page 84 Common security ties......Page 86 Conclusion......Page 87 4 Domestic institutions and the Political Accountability Model......Page 88 Premise 1: The primacy of retaining office for incumbent leaders......Page 89 Premise 2: The strategic behavior of political opposition......Page 90 Premise 3: Differences in domestic political institutions are a source of variation in political accountability......Page 92 Premise 4: The impact of political vulnerability on foreign policy......Page 94 Comparisons across political systems......Page 95 Comparisons within political systems......Page 100 Comparisons among democratic leaders......Page 101 Comparisons among non-democratic leaders......Page 107 Comparisons among dyads......Page 109 Measuring the accountability of democratic and non-democratic leaders......Page 111 Measuring accountability among democratic leaders......Page 115 Measuring political security among non-democratic leaders......Page 116 Measuring political vulnerability of states in dyads......Page 118 Conclusion......Page 119 Political Norms Model......Page 121 Premise 1: Norms are principles for political bargaining......Page 122 Premise 2: Domestic political institutions are a source of political norms......Page 124 Comparing democratic and non-democratic political systems......Page 128 Comparisons within political systems......Page 132 Comparisons among dyads......Page 133 Comparing states with non-violent vs. violent political norms......Page 137 Comparisons within political systems......Page 140 Comparisons among dyads......Page 141 Conclusion......Page 142 Political Affinity Model......Page 144 Premise 1: Foreign policy as a means of retaining political office......Page 145 Premise 2: Group membership as a source of political identity formation......Page 146 Premise 3: Political conflict is greater between groups than within groups......Page 147 Hypotheses......Page 149 Similar and dissimilar political regimes......Page 153 Recent transitions to political similarity......Page 154 Political insecurity and politically dissimilar states......Page 155 Conclusion......Page 156 7 Empirical results for decisions to challenge the status quo......Page 158 Estimation of the Challenge the Status Quo Stage......Page 159 Results for the International Politics Model......Page 165 Results for hypotheses that compare leaders of democratic and non-democratic states......Page 173 Results for hypotheses that draw comparisons among leaders of democratic and non-democratic states......Page 179 Results for hypotheses that compare across dyads......Page 185 Results for hypotheses that compare leaders with strong vs. weak nonviolent norms......Page 189 Results for hypotheses that compare leaders among either democratic or non-democratic states......Page 193 Results for hypotheses that compare within and across dyads......Page 197 Results for the Political Affinity Model......Page 203 Conclusion......Page 206 Estimation of the Negotiations Stage......Page 209 Results of statistical tests......Page 212 Results for the International Politics Model......Page 214 Results for Political Accountability Model......Page 218 Results for hypotheses that compare leaders of democratic and non-democratic states......Page 219 Results for hypotheses that draw comparisons among leaders of democratic and non-democratic States......Page 225 Results for hypotheses that compare across dyads......Page 231 Results for the Political Norms Model......Page 234 Results for hypotheses that compare leaders with strong vs. weak nonviolent norms......Page 235 Results for hypotheses that compare leaders among either democratic or non-democratic states......Page 239 Results for hypotheses that compare within and across dyads......Page 241 Results for the Political Affinity Model......Page 243 Conclusion......Page 248 Estimation of the Escalation Stage......Page 251 Results of statistical tests......Page 252 Results for the International Politics Model......Page 253 Results for hypotheses that compare leaders of democratic and non-democratic states......Page 261 Results for hypotheses that draw comparisons among leaders of democratic and non-democratic states......Page 267 Results for hypotheses that compare across dyads......Page 271 Results for hypotheses that compare leaders with strong vs. weak nonviolent norms......Page 277 Results for hypotheses that compare leaders among either democratic or non-democratic states......Page 281 Results for hypotheses that compare within and across dyads......Page 283 Results for the Political Affinity Model......Page 289 Conclusion......Page 293 Review of empirical findings......Page 297 The payoffs of adopting an alternative research design......Page 304 Comparing the explanatory power of Political Norms vs. Political Accountability Models......Page 306 The puzzle of variation in the conflict behavior of democratic and non-democratic states......Page 307 The debate over audience costs and democratic institutions......Page 308 The debate over international-level vs. domestic-level explanations of foreign policy behavior......Page 310 Policy implications......Page 311 Is democracy an asset or liability for foreign policy-makers?......Page 312 Promoting the resolution of international disputes......Page 313 Third-party efforts at mediation and extended deterrence......Page 314 The Political Norms Model......Page 315 The Political Accountability Model......Page 316 General research design for studying international disputes......Page 317 Territorial conflict in the international system......Page 318 How to code disputes pursued intermittently......Page 321 How to code multiple claims between the same parties......Page 322 Coding by delimitation vs. demarcation......Page 323 How to code latent disputes......Page 324 List of dispute cases......Page 325 Case summaries of territorial disputes in Europe, 1919–1995......Page 329 Bibliography of sources listed in case summaries......Page 354 List of dispute cases......Page 360 Case summaries of territorial disputes in the Near East, Middle East, and North Africa 1919–1995......Page 365 Bibliography of sources listed in case summaries......Page 390 List of dispute cases......Page 395 Case summaries of territorial disputes in Africa, 1919–1995......Page 397 Bibliography of sources listed in case summaries......Page 412 List of dispute cases......Page 416 Case summaries of territorial disputes in Central Asia, the Far East, and Pacific......Page 419 Bibliography of sources listed in case summaries......Page 444 List of dispute cases......Page 452 Case summaries of territorial disputes in the Americas......Page 454 Bibliography of sources listed in case summaries......Page 476 Bibliography......Page 481 Index......Page 505 This Book Re-evaluates The Foundations Of The Democratic Peace Literature And Presents Three Distinct Theoretical Models Of How Domestic Institutions Can Influence The Foreign Policy Choices Of State Leaders - Political Accountability, Political Norms, And Political Affinity. Huth And Allee Test Their Hypotheses Against A New And Original Global Data Set Of 348 Territorial Disputes From 1919 To 1995. Each Territorial Dispute Is Divided Into Three Separate But Related Stages For Empirical Analysis: Challenge The Status Quo Stage, Negotiation Stage, And Military Escalation Stage. The Authors Employ Advanced Statistical Tests To Compare The Explanatory Power Of The Three Theoretical Models Across Each Stage Of A Territorial Dispute. Their Results Provide Strong Support For The Importance Of Democratic Accountability And Norms In Shaping The Diplomatic And Military Policies Of Incumbent Leaders, And Add New Insights Into Understanding When And Why Democratic Leaders Engage In Highly Cooperative Or Confrontational Foreign Policies.--jacket. 1. Another Study Of Democracy And International Conflict? -- 2. Pathways To Conflict Escalation And Resolution In International Disputes -- 3. The International Strategic Context -- 4. Domestic Institutions And The Political Accountability Model -- 5. Domestic Institutions And The Political Norms Model -- 6. Domestic Institutions And The Political Affinity Model -- 7. Empirical Results For Decisions To Challenge The Status Quo -- 8. Empirical Results For Decisions To Offer Concessions In Negotiations -- 9. Empirical Results For Decisions To Escalate With Military Force -- 10. What Have We Learned About The Democratic Peace? Paul K. Huth And Todd L. Allee. Includes Bibliographical References (p. 461-484) And Index. It is commonly said that democracies very seldom fight each other. This book asks whether the assumption of a "democratic peace" is valid and seeks to explain why. Explanations explored include the accountability of democratic leaders to domestic institutions; the norms of democratic competition which influence international affairs; and the common interests which democracies have pursued.