Paul D. Senese

A unified explanation of territorial conflict: Testing the impact of sampling bias, 1919-1992

This article develops a new unified territorial explanation of conflict that accounts for the possibility of certain factors affecting the rise of a militarized dispute, as well as the probability that a dispute will escalate to war. In the past, research linking territorial disputes to a relatively high probability of war outbreak has been criticized for underestimating the potential problem of sampling bias in the militarized interstate dispute (MID) data. This study utilizes newly available data on territorial claims going back to 1919 to determine, using a two-stage estimation procedure, whether the presence of territorial claims in the dispute onset phase affects the relationship between territorial militarized disputes and war in the second stage. It is found that territorial claims increase the probability of a militarized dispute occurring and that territorial MIDs increase the probability of war, even while controlling for the effect of territorial claims on dispute onset. The effect of territory across the two stages is consistent with the new territorial explanation of conflict and war and shows no sampling bias with regard to territory in the MID data.

Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements:

The argument that democracies are less belligerent toward one another because of their experience with mediation, negotiation, and compromise at the domestic level suggests that negotiated dispute settlements are more likely between relatively democratic states than other conflicting pairs. Militarized Interstate Dispute data and Polity IIId and Freedom House ratings of democracy are used to examine the propensities of disputants to resolve their grievances through negotiated means. Findings suggest a strong positive influence for mutual democracy. Specifically, the more democratic the less democratic member of a conflictual dyad, the more likely it is their dispute will be resolved through a negotiated settlement. This finding also holds across varying degrees of dyadic relative power and supports existing literature that chronicles the pacific conditioning power of democratic norms for several areas of interstate relations.

Sowing the Seeds of Conflict: The Effect of Dispute Settlements on Durations of Peace

We apply formal models of deterrence developed by Zagare and Kilgour (2000) to examine the impact of dispute settlements on future discord. Our theory of recurrent conflict, based primarily on how levels of satisfaction lead to different types of deterrence, allows us to formulate explicit expectations for the relative stability of militarized conflict settlements. We conceptualize peace periods following dispute settlements as situations of mutual or unilateral deterrence, depending on the method of resolution applied to the preceding dispute. Relations following imposed settlements are modeled as unilateral deterrence situations, while affairs subsequent to negotiated settlements and disputes ending without a settlement are viewed as instances of mutual deterrence. We derive hypotheses regarding durations of peace and test them through survival analyses of the periods of peace following 2,536 dyadic militarized interstate disputes between 1816 and 1992. Our results strongly support the theorys expectat...

Assessing the Steps to War

This analysis outlines and tests the steps-to-war explanation of international conflict. At the core of this explanation is the expectation that territorial disputes are a key source of war and that as states that have these disputes make politically relevant alliances, have recurring disputes and build up their military forces against each other, they will experience ever-increasing probabilities of war. The absence of these risk factors is expected to lessen the chances of severe conflict. Utilizing the Militarized Interstate Dispute data of the Correlates of War project, the data analyses provide full support for the steps-to-war explanation during the 1816–1945 era and partial support for the Cold War nuclear 1946–92 span. Among the findings for this latter period is the presence of a curvilinear relationship between the number of prior disputes and the probability of war – after a large number of disputes, states begin to ritualize their behaviour at levels short of war.

Democracy and Maturity: Deciphering Conditional Effects on Levels of Dispute Intensity

A good deal of recent research has focused on the possible dangers associated with young democracies that are trying to weave their way through modern interstate relations for the first time. Democratic transitions, and their immediate aftermath, have been isolated as periods plagued by all sorts of potential conflict. Further, some studies implicitly suggest that the maturity of the regime may matter at least as much as the type of regime. This research directly examines the interactive effects of both joint democracy and joint maturity on the levels of intensity reached in militarized conflict. The findings reveal the conditional importance of both factors. Joint democracy imparts disparate effects on the hostility intensification of disputes, in terms of direction and magnitude, depending on maturity levels. Similarly, the magnitude of the joint maturity impact is contingent on democracy levels, although the direction of its influence remains unchanged across varying degrees of democracy. These findings signal the necessity of explicitly considering linkages between the effects of regime type and regime maturity in theories and tests of dyadic conflict dynamics.

Chinese Acquisition of the Spratly Archipelago and Its Implications for the Future

In this study, I first examine the place of the Spratly Islands dispute at the heart of interstate relations between China and its regional neighbors around the South China Sea. In doing so, I trace the varied historical claims and periodic disputes over the archipelago, along with the current state of affairs, which is increasingly dominated by the need for more and cheaper sources of oil and natural gas. This background lays the groundwork for the core of this study, which is a simulation analysis looking at the potential ramifications of a more aggressive Chinese position in the South China Sea. Using computer simulation techniques, I compare the desirability of two scenarios related to Chinese policy in the area. The findings suggest that a more aggressive Chinese policy on the Spratlys would be beneficial in some ways, especially in the areas of energy production and imports over the following forty years. At the same time, there are several potential drawbacks as well, including increased environmental degradation and renewed energy supply problems in the second half of the century. I conclude by examining the implications of both conflictual and peaceful Chinese approaches to policy in the South China Sea, in light of Chinas obvious ascension as the leading state in East and Southeast Asia, as well as its rapidly improving global position.