IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v65y2021i2-3p342-371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Naval Power and Effects of Third-Party Trade on Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Nizan Feldman
  • Ehud Eiran
  • Aviad Rubin

Abstract

This study argues that the effect of third-party trade on dyadic conflicts is conditional on the naval power of both the potential conflict initiator and its target state. This conditional effect occurs mainly because naval power allows trade-integrated initiators to reduce their trade dependence on a given trade partner and its allies more easily. At the same time, the target’s naval power increases the costs that conflict inflict on the initiator’s trade. As maritime trade accounts for about 80 percent of world trade volume, naval capability has an important effect on combatant states’ ability to substitute trading partners during a conflict and to mitigate trade-related costs, thereby affecting the relationship between third-party trade and conflict. The findings of our statistical analyses support our theoretical expectation that the pacifying effect of third-party trade diminishes as the initiator’s naval power increases, yet increases as the naval power of the potential target increases.

Suggested Citation

  • Nizan Feldman & Ehud Eiran & Aviad Rubin, 2021. "Naval Power and Effects of Third-Party Trade on Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(2-3), pages 342-371, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:65:y:2021:i:2-3:p:342-371
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002720958180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002720958180
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002720958180?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glaser, Darrell J. & Rahman, Ahmed S., 2016. "Ex Tridenti Mercatus? Sea-power and maritime trade in the age of globalization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 95-111.
    2. Zeev Maoz, 2009. "The Effects of Strategic and Economic Interdependence on International Conflict Across Levels of Analysis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 223-240, January.
    3. Clark, Ximena & Dollar, David & Micco, Alejandro, 2004. "Port efficiency, maritime transport costs, and bilateral trade," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 417-450, December.
    4. Polachek, Solomon & Xiang, Jun, 2010. "How Opportunity Costs Decrease the Probability of War in an Incomplete Information Game," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(1), pages 133-144, January.
    5. Ronald Findlay & Kevin H. O'Rourke, 2007. "Introduction to Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium," Introductory Chapters, in: Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium, Princeton University Press.
    6. Axel Dreher, 2006. "Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(10), pages 1091-1110.
    7. Gartzke, Erik & Li, Quan & Boehmer, Charles, 2001. "Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 391-438, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yue Lu & Wei Gu & Ka Zeng, 2021. "Does the Belt and Road Initiative Promote Bilateral Political Relations?," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 29(5), pages 57-83, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brandon J Kinne, 2014. "Does third-party trade reduce conflict? Credible signaling versus opportunity costs," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(1), pages 28-48, February.
    2. Yuleng Zeng, 2021. "Biding time versus timely retreat: Asymmetric dependence, issue salience, and conflict duration," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(4), pages 719-733, July.
    3. Timothy M Peterson, 2011. "Third-party trade, political similarity, and dyadic conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 48(2), pages 185-200, March.
    4. Maryam Asghari & Elham Oliagard, 2017. "Trade and National Security: A Test for Best-Known Hypothesis," Iranian Economic Review (IER), Faculty of Economics,University of Tehran.Tehran,Iran, vol. 21(2), pages 403-431, Spring.
    5. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.
    6. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2012. "War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 257-278, July.
    7. Wei Tian & Zhuxi Xu & Miaojie Yu & Huihuang Zhu, 2018. "China's Free Trade Ports: Effective Action Against the Threat of De‐globalization," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 26(4), pages 62-81, July.
    8. Xiang Jun & Primiano Christopher B. & Huang Wei-hao, 2015. "Aggressive or Peaceful Rise? An Empirical Assessment of China’s Militarized Conflict, 1979–2010," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(3), pages 301-325, August.
    9. Ghulam Shabbir & Amjad Naveed & Muhammad Ali Khan & Shabib Haider Syed, 2022. "Does Peace Promote Bilateral Trade Flows? An Economic Analysis of Panel Data in Asian Perspective," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 64(1), pages 143-158, March.
    10. Léopold BIARDEAU & Anne BORING, 2017. "L’impact de l’aide au développement sur les flux commerciaux entre pays donateurs et pays récipiendaires," Working Paper 464d860e-562e-4ae7-98f5-1, Agence française de développement.
    11. Aysegul Aydin, 2010. "The deterrent effects of economic integration," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 47(5), pages 523-533, September.
    12. Yonatan Lupu & Vincent A. Traag, 2013. "Trading Communities, the Networked Structure of International Relations, and the Kantian Peace," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 57(6), pages 1011-1042, December.
    13. Polachek Solomon W & Xiang Jun, 2010. "Opportunity Costs and the Probability of War in an Incomplete Information Game (With Comments by Lloyd Jeff Dumas)," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-6, June.
    14. Timothy M Peterson, 2020. "Reconsidering economic leverage and vulnerability: Trade ties, sanction threats, and the success of economic coercion," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(4), pages 409-429, July.
    15. Ezcurra, Roberto & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2013. "Does Economic Globalization affect Regional Inequality? A Cross-country Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 92-103.
    16. Miaojie Yu, 2020. "China-US Trade War and Trade Talk," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-981-15-3785-1, September.
    17. Roberto Ezcurra, 2012. "Is There a Link between Globalization and Governance?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(5), pages 848-870, October.
    18. Lee, Yusin, 2017. "Interdependence, issue importance, and the 2009 Russia-Ukraine gas conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 199-209.
    19. Roberto Ezcurra & Beatriz Manotas, 2017. "Is there a link between globalisation and civil conflict?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(12), pages 2592-2610, December.
    20. Max Gallop, 2017. "More dangerous than dyads: how a third party enables rationalist explanations for war," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(3), pages 353-381, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:65:y:2021:i:2-3:p:342-371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.