IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v29y2012i5p471-489.html

Issue Intractability and the Persistence of International Rivalry

Author

Listed:
  • David R. Dreyer

Abstract

Rivalries are likely to persist as long as contentious issues remain unresolved. Due to differing issue characteristics, some issues may be more intractable than others and therefore especially likely to prolong rivalry. In this study, I argue that rivalries rooted in territorial issues tend to be enduring due to broad-bases of domestic support for continuing to pursue territorial claims and loose linkages between territorial issues and particular political leaders, resulting in the persistence of territorial conflict over time despite changes of leadership. Alternatively, ideological and regime-related conflicts tend to be relatively fleeting due to narrow societal salience and close connections between such issues and particular political leaders, facilitating rivalry termination through leadership change. The empirical results reveal that territorial rivalries (as well as positional rivalries concerning influence/prestige) tend to be more enduring than rivalries rooted in ideological or regime-related conflict and that unlike territorial rivalries, ideological rivalries tend to terminate upon irregular changes of leadership.

Suggested Citation

  • David R. Dreyer, 2012. "Issue Intractability and the Persistence of International Rivalry," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(5), pages 471-489, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:29:y:2012:i:5:p:471-489
    DOI: 10.1177/0738894212449090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894212449090
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0738894212449090?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. Paul D. Senese, 2005. "Territory, Contiguity, and International Conflict: Assessing a New Joint Explanation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 769-779, October.
    2. Daniel S. Morey, 2011. "When War Brings Peace: A Dynamic Model of the Rivalry Process," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 263-275, April.
    3. Derekh Cornwell & Michael Colaresi, 2002. "Holy Trinities, Rivalry Termination, and Conflict," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 325-353, October.
    4. Prins, Brandon C. & Daxecker, Ursula E., 2008. "Committed To Peace: Liberal Institutions and the Termination of Rivalry," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 17-43, January.
    5. Allee, Todd L. & Huth, Paul K., 2006. "Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 219-234, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Richard J Saunders, 2023. "A certain gamble: Institutional change, leader turnover, and their effect on rivalry termination," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(3), pages 281-303, May.
    2. David B Carter, 2017. "History as a double-edged sword," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 16(4), pages 400-421, November.
    3. Krista E Wiegand & Emilia Justyna Powell & Steven McDowell, 2021. "The Peaceful Resolution of Territorial Disputes dataset, 1945–2015," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(2), pages 304-314, March.
    4. Benjamin E. Bagozzi, 2016. "The baseline-inflated multinomial logit model for international relations research," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(2), pages 174-197, April.
    5. Molly M. Melin & Scott Sigmund Gartner & Jacob Bercovitch, 2013. "Fear of rejection: The puzzle of unaccepted mediation offers in international conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(4), pages 354-368, September.
    6. William D. Berry & Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt & Justin Esarey, 2010. "Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 248-266, January.
    7. Choong-Nam Kang, 2017. "Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 546-571, September.
    8. Kentaro Sakuwa & William R Thompson, 2019. "On the origins, persistence and termination of spatial and positional rivalries in world politics: Elaborating a two-issue theory of conflict escalation," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 203-225, September.
    9. Áslaug Ásgeirsdóttir & Martin Steinwand, 2015. "Dispute settlement mechanisms and maritime boundary settlements," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 119-143, June.
    10. Kyle Beardsley & Nigel Lo, 2013. "Democratic Communities and Third-Party Conflict Management," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(1), pages 76-93, February.
    11. David H. Bearce & Thomas R. Cook, 2018. "The first image reversed: IGO signals and mass political attitudes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 595-619, December.
    12. Jo Jakobsen & Thomas Halvorsen, 2019. "Geographical and temporal patterns of interstate security competition: Global and regional evidence," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 226-246, September.
    13. Michaela Mattes, 2018. "“Chipping Away at the Issuesâ€," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(1), pages 94-118, January.
    14. Daniel Albalate & Germà Bel & Ferran A. Mazaira‐Font, 2022. "Geography and regional economic growth: The high cost of deviating from nature," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 360-388, March.
    15. Andrew P. Owsiak, 2019. "Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(1), pages 63-87, January.
    16. Lee, Jiwon & Wittgenstein, Teresa, 2017. "Weak vs. Strong Ties: Explaining Early Settlement in WTO Disputes," ILE Working Paper Series 7, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    17. M. Patrick Hulme & Erik Gartzke & Alex Braithwaite & Lauren Gilbert, 2026. "Power, Parity, and Place: Why Forgetting the Loss-of-Strength Gradient Misses the Relative Power Relationship," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 70(4), pages 559-588, April.
    18. Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd & Klasing, Mariko J., 2016. "Diversity and trust: The role of shared values," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 522-540.
    19. Mark Copelovitch & David Ohls, 2012. "Trade, institutions, and the timing of GATT/WTO accession in post-colonial states," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 81-107, March.
    20. Ariel Zellman & Jonathan Fox, 2024. "Under God, indivisible? Religious salience and interstate territorial conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(5), pages 825-841, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:compsc:v:29:y:2012:i:5:p:471-489. 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.