Territory, Contiguity, and International Conflict: Assessing a New Joint Explanation

Beginning with two prominent explanations of international conflict—one based on contiguity and the other on territory—I develop a new joint account that provides two important advancements over the prior explanations. I then test the expectations of this joint account on dispute and war onset for all dyad years from 1919 to 1995. I find strong support for its predictions at the dispute stage and partial support at the war stage, including marked evidence of contingency between contiguity and territory. The results also show territory to be a more consistent engine of conflict than contiguity, especially at the war onset stage. Further, the findings provide insights into the effects of contiguity among nonterritorial disagreements, as well as the effects of territorial strife among noncontiguous pairs. Thus, this investigation clarifies the relative importance of both territory and contiguity within any geography‐based explanation of conflict behavior, and therefore has broadly interesting implications.