The Severity of Interstate Disputes: Are Dyadic Capability Preponderances Really More Pacific?

Journal of Conflict Resolution

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 728-750

  Sweeney, Kevin J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Dispute severity; Interest similarity; Military capability

Indexed keywords

EID: 0344585431     PISSN: 00220027     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0022002703258289     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Achen, Christopher H. 1986. The statistical analysis of quasi experiments, Berkeley: University of California Press.
2. Beck, Nathaniel, Jonathan N. Katz, and Richard Tucker. 1998. Taking time seriously in binary time-series-cross-section analysis. American Journal of Political Science 42:1260-88.
3. Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan Stam. 2000. EUGene: A conceptual manual. International Interactions 26:179-204.
4. Boulding, Kenneth. 1962. Conflict and defense. New York: Harper.
5. Brecher, Michael. 1993. Crisis in world politics: Theory and reality. New York: Pergamon.
6. Bremer, Stuart A. 1992. Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816-1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36:309-41.
7. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The war trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8. _. 1985. The war trap revisited: A revised expected utility model. American Political Science Review 79:156-76.
9. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and David Lalman. 1992. War and reason: Domestic and international imperatives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10. Claude, Inis L., Jr. 1962. Power and international relations. New York: Random House.
11. Cusack, Thomas R., and Wolf-Dieter Eberwein. 1982. Prelude to war: Incidence, escalation and intervention in international disputes, 1900-1976. International Interactions 9:9-28.
12. Diehl, Paul, and Gary Goertz. 2000. War and peace in international rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
13. Drifte, Reinhard. 1990. Japan's foreign policy. London: Chatham House.
14. Fearon, James D. 1994. Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes, American Political Science Review 88:577-92.
15. Ferris, Wayne H. 1973. The power capabilities of nation-states: International, conflict and war. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
16. Fischerkeller, Michael P. 1998. David versus Goliath: Cultural judgments in asymmetric wars. Security Studies 7:1-43.
17. Friedrich, Robert J. 1982. In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations. American Journal of Political Science 26:797-833.
18. Garnham, David. 1976. Power parity and lethal international violence, 1969-1973. Journal of Conflict Resolution 20:379-94.
19. Garthoff, Raymond L. 1985. Détente and confrontation: American-Soviet relations from Nixon to Reagan. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
20. Gartzke, Erik. 1998. Kant we all get along? Motive, opportunity, and the origins of the democratic peace. American Journal of Political Science 42:1-27.
21. _. 2000. Preferences and the democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly 44:192-212.
22. Gartzke, Erik, Dong-Joon Jo, and Richard Tucker. 1999. The similarity of UN policy positions, 1946-1996. Version 1.17.
23. Geller, Daniel S. 2000. Material capabilities: Power and international conflict. In What do we know about war? edited by Paul Vasquez. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
24. Grant, Richard L. 1997. Japan and Northeast Asia. In The process of Japanese foreign policy, edited by Richard L. Grant. London: Chatham House.
25. Greene, William. 2000. Econometric analysis. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26. Gulick, Edward V. 1955. Europe's classical balance of power: A case history of the theory and practice of one of the great concepts of European statecraft. New York: Norton.
27. Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153-61.
28. Hensel, Paul R. 1996. Charting a course to conflict: Territorial issues and interstate conflict, 1816-1992. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15:43-73.
29. _. 2000. Territory: Theory and evidence on geography and conflict. In What do we know about war? edited by Paul Vasquez. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
30. Huth, Paul K. 1996. Standing your ground. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31. Jaccard, James, Robert Turrisi, and Choi K. Wan. 1990. Interaction effects in multiple regression. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
32. Jones, Daniel, Stuart Bremer, and J. David Singer. 1996. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15:163-215.
33. Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in international political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34. Kim, Woosang. 1991. Alliance transitions and great power war. American Journal of Political Science 35:833-50.
35. _. 1992. Power transitions and great power war from Westphalia to Waterloo. World Politics 45:153-72.
36. _. 1996. Power parity, alliance, and war from 1648 to 1975. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger, edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
37. King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. Making the most of statistical analysis: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44:341-55.
38. Kinsella, David, and Bruce Russen. 2002. Conflict emergence and escalation in interactive international dyads. Journal of Politics 64:1045-68.
39. Kissinger, Henry. 1982. Years of upheaval. Boston: Little, Brown.
40. Lemke, Douglas. 1996. Small states and war. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of the war ledger, edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
41. Lemke, Douglas, and William Reed. 1996. Regime types and status quo evaluations: Power transition theory and the democratic peace. International Interactions 22:143-64.
42. _. 2001. War and rivalry among great powers. American Journal of Political Science 45:457-69.
43. Lemke, Douglas, and Suzanne Werner. 1996. Power parity, commitment to change, and war. International Studies Quarterly 40:235-60.
44. Maoz, Zeev, and Brace Russett. 1993. Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946-1986. American Political Science Review 87:624-38.
45. Matake, Kamiya. 2000. Japanese foreign policy toward Northeast Asia. In Japanese foreign policy today, edited by Inoguchi Takashi and Purnendra Jain. New York: Palgrave.
46. McLaughlin Mitchell, Sara, and Brandon Prins. 1999. Beyond territorial contiguity: Issues at stake in democratic militarized interstate disputes. International Studies Quarterly 43:169-83.
47. Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization 51:513-53.
48. Morgenthau, Hans J. 1967. Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. 4th ed. New York: Knopf.
49. Morrow, James D., and Woosang Kim. 1992. When do power shifts lead to war? American Journal of Political Science 36:896-922.
50. Oneal, John R., and Brace Russett. 1997. The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950-1985. International Studies Quarterly 41:267-93.
51. _. 1999. The Kantian peace: The pacific benefits of democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885-1992. World Politics 52:1-37.
52. Organski, A. F. K. 1968. World politics. New York: Knopf.
53. Organski, A. F. K., and Jacek Kugler. 1980. The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54. Reed, William. 2000. A unified statistical model of conflict onset and escalation. American Journal of Political Science 44:84-93.
55. Russett, Brace, and John R. Oneal. 2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York: Norton.
56. Schweller, Randall L. 1998. Deadly imbalances: Tripolarity and Hitler's strategy of world conquest. New York: Columbia University Press.
57. Senese, Paul D. 1996. Geographical proximity and issue salience: Their effects on the escalation of militarized interstate conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science 15:133-61.
58. _. 1997. Between disputes and war: The effect of joint democracy on interstate conflict escalation. Journal of Politics 59:1-27.
59. _. 1999. Democracy and maturity: Deciphering conditional effects on levels of dispute intensity. International Studies Quarterly 43:483-502.
60. Sigelman, Lee, and Langche Zeng. 1999. Analyzing censored and sample-selected data with Tobit and Heckit models. Political Analysis 8:167-82.
61. Signorino, Curtis S., and Jeffrey Ritter. 1999. Tau-b or not tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly 43:115-44.
62. Siverson, Randolph, and Michael Tennefoss. 1984. Power, alliance, and the escalation of international conflict, 1815-1965. American Political Science Review 78:1057-69.
63. Small, Melvin, and J. David Singer. 1982. Resort to arms. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
64. Tucker, Richard. 1999. BTSCS: A binary time-series-cross-section data analysis utility. Version 4.0.4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved from www.fas.harvard.edu/̃rtucker/programs/btscs/btscs.html
65. Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
66. Weede, Erich. 1976. Overwhelming preponderance as a pacifying condition among contiguous Asian dyads, 1950-1969. Journal of Conflict Resolution 20:395-411.
67. Wendt, Alex. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68. Wright, Quincy. 1965. A study of war. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.