IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Issue Rivalries

Listed author(s):
  • Sara McLaughlin Mitchell

    (Department of Political Science, University of Iowa)

  • Cameron G. Thies

    (Department of Political Science, University of Iowa)

Registered author(s):

    This article expands upon the traditional interstate rivalry concept by focusing on two conceptual dimensions of interstate rivalry: issues and militarization. The first dimension captures the number of distinct issues that characterize a dyadic interstate relationship, such as repeated clashes between states over border disputes, maritime zones, or cross-border rivers. The second dimension is very similar to the dispute density approach to rivalry, and captures the number of militarized incidents over specific contentious issues. The first dimension of issue rivalry is coded by identifying pairs of states with two or more (simultaneous) contentious issues. The second dimension of militarized rivalry is coded for single issues (such as a border dispute), capturing the presence of two or more militarized incidents over that issue in the past. Empirical analyses of these two new rivalry measures in the Western Hemisphere and Western Europe show some important variation in these rivalry dimensions. Issue rivals and militarized rivals are significantly more likely to employ militarized force and peaceful negotiation techniques to resolve geopolitical issues in comparison with dyads that experience contentious issues in non-rivalry settings. On the other hand, dyads characterized by issue rivalry do not experience disputes that escalate to high levels of violence, such as fatalities or wars. It is only prior militarization of a specific contentious issue that leads states down the path to war.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Peace Science Society (International) in its journal Conflict Management and Peace Science.

    Volume (Year): 28 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 3 (July)
    Pages: 230-260

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:28:y:2011:i:3:p:230-260
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:28:y:2011:i:3:p:230-260. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (SAGE Publications)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.