IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v20y2017i4p293-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bones of democratic contention: Maritime disputes

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly Daniels

    (Macfadden & Associates, US; US Agency for International Development, Office of Food for Peace, US)

  • Sara McLaughlin Mitchell

    (Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, US)

Abstract

While no two democratic states have fought an interstate war against each other, democratic dyads experience militarized disputes with some frequency. Previous research suggests that a large percentage of militarized disputes between two democracies involve fishing and oil resources of the sea. Yet this research selects on cases where militarized conflict occurs, and fails to consider whether democracies have more frequent diplomatic conflicts over maritime areas relative to other regime pairings. Analyzing data from the Issue Correlates of War project, which includes diplomatic conflicts over maritime areas (1900–2007) in the Americas, Europe, Middle East, and Asia, this study finds that pairs of democracies have the highest chance of experiencing diplomatic maritime disputes among all pairs of countries in the same region or dyads involving major powers. Three theoretical explanations were empirically evaluated to account for this pattern: (a) greater opportunities for democratic maritime conflicts given higher levels of economic productivity and the sizes of fishing fleets in democratic states, (b) the increasing securitization of maritime issues, especially after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, and (c) variations in the number of democracies across regional contexts. Several illustrative case studies for each theoretical argument are presented. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for the democratic peace literature and the law of the sea regime.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly Daniels & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2017. "Bones of democratic contention: Maritime disputes," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 20(4), pages 293-310, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:20:y:2017:i:4:p:293-310
    DOI: 10.1177/2233865917740269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2233865917740269
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2233865917740269?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. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    2. Stephen C. Nemeth & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Elizabeth A. Nyman & Paul R. Hensel, 2014. "Ruling the Sea: Managing Maritime Conflicts through UNCLOS and Exclusive Economic Zones," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 711-736, October.
    3. Tomz, Michael & Wittenberg, Jason & King, Gary, 2003. "Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 8(i01).
    4. Huebert, Rob, 1995. "Polar vision or tunnel vision the making of Canadian Arctic waters policy : The making of Canadian Arctic waters policy," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 343-363, July.
    5. Dixon, William J., 1994. "Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 14-32, March.
    6. Carter, David B. & Signorino, Curtis S., 2010. "Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 271-292, July.
    7. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    8. Schultz, Kenneth A., 1999. "Do Democratic Institutions Constrain or Inform? Contrasting Two Institutional Perspectives on Democracy and War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 233-266, April.
    9. Paul R Hensel & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2017. "From territorial claims to identity claims: The Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 126-140, March.
    10. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    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. 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.
    2. Johann Park, 2013. "Forward to the future? The democratic peace after the Cold War," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(2), pages 178-194, April.
    3. David Altman & Federico Rojas-de-Galarreta & Francisco Urdinez, 2021. "An interactive model of democratic peace," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 384-398, May.
    4. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita & Michael T. Koch & Randolph M. Siverson, 2004. "Testing Competing Institutional Explanations of the Democratic Peace: The Case of Dispute Duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(4), pages 255-267, September.
    5. Sambuddha Ghatak & Aaron Gold & Brandon C Prins, 2017. "External threat and the limits of democratic pacifism," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 141-159, March.
    6. 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.
    7. David H. Clark & Patrick M. Regan, 2003. "Opportunities to Fight," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(1), pages 94-115, February.
    8. Brian Lai, 2004. "The Effects of Different Types of Military Mobilization on the Outcome of International Crises," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(2), pages 211-229, April.
    9. Jason Enia & Patrick James, 2015. "Regime Type, Peace, and Reciprocal Effects," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 523-539, June.
    10. Alexandra Guisinger & Alastair Smith, 2002. "Honest Threats," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(2), pages 175-200, April.
    11. Wafa Ghardallou & Dorsaf Sridi, 2020. "Democracy and Economic Growth: a Literature Review," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(3), pages 982-1002, September.
    12. Shawna K. Metzger, 2017. "Time is on my side? The impact of timing and dispute type on militarized conflict duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 308-329, May.
    13. Matthew Fuhrmann & Sarah E. Kreps, 2010. "Targeting Nuclear Programs in War and Peace: A Quantitative Empirical Analysis, 1941-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(6), pages 831-859, December.
    14. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2017. "Dangerous bargains with the devil? Incorporating new approaches in peace science for the study of war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 98-116, January.
    15. Morgan, T. Clifton & Kobayashi, Yoshiharu, 2021. "Talking to the hand: Bargaining, strategic interaction, and economic sanctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    16. Timothy M. Peterson & James M. Scott, 2018. "The Democracy Aid Calculus: Regimes, Political Opponents, and the Allocation of US Democracy Assistance, 1981–2009," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(2), pages 268-293, March.
    17. Elizabeth A. Stanley & John P. Sawyer, 2009. "The Equifinality of War Termination," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(5), pages 651-676, October.
    18. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Scott Gates & HÃ¥vard Hegre, 1999. "Evolution in Democracy-War Dynamics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(6), pages 771-792, December.
    19. Robert Ulrich Nagel, 2021. "Gendered preferences: How women’s inclusion in society shapes negotiation occurrence in intrastate conflicts," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 433-448, May.
    20. Sam R. Bell, 2017. "Power, territory, and interstate conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 160-175, March.

    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:intare:v:20:y:2017:i:4:p:293-310. 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://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    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.