Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 October 2012
The likelihood of conflict and the observation of joint democracy tend to cluster regionally. This article tests the argument that these clusters can be explained by regional variations in the stability of international borders using a new dataset of territorial dispute hot spots from 1960–1998. These hot spots identify spatial and temporal correlations in the territorial dispute data and therefore serve as close proxies for regional or neighbourhood instability. The addition of these hot spots also eliminates a common form of omitted variable bias – the spatial clustering of conflict – in international conflict models. These results confirm that joint democracy is only statistically significant as a predictor of fatal militarized interstate disputes in more peaceful neighbourhoods once territorial hot spots are jointly estimated. The interaction between joint democracy and regional instability confirms that the effects of regime type on continued conflict apply mostly to dyads in peaceful regions.
Douglas Gibler is Professor of Political Science and Arts and Sciences Leadership Board Fellow, Department of Political Science, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa (email: firstname.lastname@example.org); Alex Braithwaite is Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science, University College, London (email: email@example.com). We are grateful to Kristian Gleditsch and to three anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments, which improved this article greatly. Gibler also thanks the HF Guggenheim Foundation for their generous research support of the Bordering on Peace project during the completion of part of this manuscript. Replication data are available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S000712341200052X.
1 Braithwaite, Alex, Conflict Hot Spots: Emergence, Causes, and Consequences (Farnham: Ashgate Press, 2010)Google Scholar
Gibler, Douglas M. and Tir, Jaroslav, ‘Settled Borders and Regime Type: Democratic Transitions as Consequences of Peaceful Territorial Transfers’, American Journal of Political Science, 54 (2010), 951–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Karl W. Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations, 2nd ed, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1979)Google Scholar
6 Gleditsch, All International Politics is Local.
9 Russett, Bruce M. and Oneal, John R., Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001)Google Scholar
11 Kacowicz, Arie M., Zones of Peace in the Third World: South America and West Africa in Comparative Perspective (Buffalo: State University of New York Press, 1998)Google Scholar
13 Henderson, Errol A., Democracy and War: the End of an Illusion? (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 2002)Google Scholar
16 Gibler, The Territorial Peace.
Gibler, Douglas M., ‘Outside-in: The Effects of External Threat on State Centralization’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54 (2010), p. 519Google Scholar
18 See Gibler, The Territorial Peace, for complete tests of each of these mechanisms in the development of a centralized state.
19 Gibler and Tir, ‘Settled Borders and Regime Type’.
21 Russett and Oneal, Triangulating Peace.
24 Braithwaite, ‘Location, Location, Location’.
Ward, Michael D. and Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, ‘Location, Location, Location: An MCMC Approach to Modeling the Spatial Context of War and Peace’, Political Analysis, 10 (2002), p. 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 For a more complete discussion of the conceptualization of a hot spot, see Braithwaite, Conflict Hot Spots.
30 Gleditsch, All International Politics is Local.
31 Braithwaite and Li, ‘Transnational Terrorism Hot Spots’.
33 We use a common measure of contiguity/proximity in defining the spatial weights matrix, wij: direct, first-order land contiguity.
34 Ord and Getis, ‘Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics’.
35 Monty G. Marshall and Keith Jaggers, Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–1999 (University of Maryland, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, 2002)Google Scholar
Oneal, John R. and Russett, Bruce M., ‘The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985’, International Studies Quarterly, 41 (1997), 267–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 See, for example, Gleditsch, All International Politics is Local.
38 Gleditsch and Ward, ‘Diffusion and the International Context of Democratization’.
41 Singer, David J., Bremer, Stuart A. and Stuckey, John, ‘Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965’, in Bruce Russett, ed., Peace, War and Numbers (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 1972)Google Scholar