Conflict management as an insular strategy? Comparing dyadic learning of dispute resolution strategies across geopolitical issues

Abstract

This study considers whether and how familiarity with (i.e. past usage) and the usefulness (i.e. success) of past conflict management strategies influence the way that pairs of countries address diplomatic conflicts over land, river, or maritime areas. The theory proposes that, while dyadic learning is possible within issues, it may be less likely across issues due to epistemic conflict management communities that arise within issue areas. Empirical analyses utilize data from the Issue Correlates of War project and focus on the context of issue rivalry, where states have two or more ongoing diplomatic conflicts involving multiple issues (e.g. rivers and territory). Empirical results show that dyadic learning occurs mostly within issue areas; for example, how river claims were managed in the past influences how rivers might be managed in the future. States learn more from past conflict management strategies that are less costly to them (e.g. negotiations or non-binding third-party conflict management) and learn less (within issue) from past uses of (the costlier) binding third-party techniques (e.g. arbitration or adjudication). Success with past conflict management strategies does not generally increase their usage in the future.

Keywords

conflict management conflict resolution international conflict learning territorial disputes river disputes maritime disputes negotiation mediation arbitration adjudication fact-finding good offices

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Colaresi

(2004). When doves cry: International rivalry, unreciprocated cooperation, and leadership turnover. American Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00087.x

Crescenzi

M. J. C.

(2018). Of friends and foes. Oxford University Press.

Cross

M. K. D.

(2013). Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Review of International Studies, 39(1), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210512000034

Dixon

W. J.

(1996). Third-party techniques for preventing conflict escalation and promoting peaceful settlement. International Organization, 50(4), 653–681. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300033543

Firth

(1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/80.1.27

Fischer

D. D.

(1982). Decisions to use the international court of justice: Four recent cases. International Studies Quarterly, 26(2), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600651

Frazier

D. V.

Dixon

(2006). Third-party intermediaries and negotiated settlements, 1946–2000. International Interactions, 32(4), 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620601011057

Frederick

B. A.

Hensel

P. R.

Macaulay

(2017). The issue correlates of war territorial claims data, 1816–2001. Journal of Peace Research, 54(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316676311

Gent

S. E.

Shannon

(2010). The effectiveness of international arbitration and adjudication: Getting into a bind. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 366–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990788

10.

Gent

S. E.

Shannon

(2011). Decision control and the pursuit of binding conflict management: Choosing the ties that bind. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(5), 710–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002711408012

11.

Ghosn

Palmer

Bremer

S. A.

(2004). The MID3 dataset, 1993–2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 21(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388940490463861

12.

Greig

J. M.

(2001). Moments of opportunity: Recognizing conditions of ripeness for international mediation between enduring rivals. Journal of Conflict Management, 45(6), 691–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002701045006001

13.

Greig

J. M.

Diehl

P. F.

(2006). Softening up: Making conflicts more amenable to diplomacy. International Interactions, 32(4), 355–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620601011032

14.

Haas

P. M.

(1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442

15.

Hensel

P. R.

(1999). Charting a course to conflict: Territorial issues and interstate conflict. In Diehl

P. F.

(Ed.), A road map to war (pp. 115–146). Vanderbilt University Press.

16.

Hensel

P. R.

(2001). Contentious issues and world politics: The management of territorial claims in The Americas. International Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00183

17.

Hensel

P. R.

Mitchell

S. M.

(2005). Issue indivisibility and territorial claims. GeoJournal, 64(4), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-005-5803-3

18.

Hensel

P. R.

Mitchell

S. M.

(2017). From territorial claims to identity claims: The Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) Project. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 34(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894216652160

19.

Hensel

P. R.

Mitchell

S. M.

Sowers

T. E.

Thyne

C. L.

(2008). Bones of contention: Comparing territorial, maritime, and river issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002707310425

20.

International Red River Watershed Board. (2025). About us. https://ijc.org/en/rrb/who/about

21.

Kirisci

Greig

J. M.

(2019). Reputation, pressure and concession-making in claim disputes. International Negotiation, 24(2), 191–219. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-24021170

22.

Kumar

S. P.

Rose

(2014). A study of lawyers appearing before the International Court of Justice, 1999–2012. European Journal of International Law, 25(3), 893–917. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chu057

23.

Lederach

J. P.

(1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press.

24.

Leng

(2000). Bargaining and learning in recurring crisis. University of Michigan Press.

25.

Leng

R. J.

Wheeler

H. G.

(1979). Influence strategies, success, and war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23(4), 655–684.

26.

Levy

J. S.

(1994). Learning and foreign policy: Sweeping a conceptual minefield. International Organization, 48(2), 279–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300028198

27.

Luu

van Slobbe

Timmerman

L. H.

Dung

T. D.

Quang

C. N. X.

(2022). Epistemic community in transboundary river regime: A case study in the Mekong River Commission regarding mainstream hydropower development. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(Suppl 2), 771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10176-8

28.

Maoz

Mor

B. D.

(2002). Bound by struggle: The strategic evolution of enduring international rivalries. University of Michigan Press.

29.

Marshall

M. G.

Gurr

T. R.

Jaggers

(2017). Polity IV project: Dataset user’s manual. http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2016.pdf

30.

Melin

M. M.

(2014). Commitment problems: Understanding variation in the frequency of international conflict management efforts. International Negotiation, 19(2), 221–256. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-12341277

31.

Mitchell

S. M.

Hensel

P. R.

(2007). International institutions and compliance with agreements. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00277.x

32.

Mitchell

S. M.

Owsiak

A. P.

(2021). Judicialization of the sea: Bargaining under the UNCLOS regime. American Journal of International Law, 115(4), 579–621. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2021.26

33.

Mitchell

S. M.

Thies

C. G.

(2011). Issue rivalries. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(3), 230–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894211404794

34.

Owsiak

A. P.

(2014). Conflict management trajectories in militarized interstate disputes: A conceptual framework and theoretical foundations. International Studies Review, 16(1), 50–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12098

35.

Owsiak

A. P.

(2021). Conflict management trajectories: Theory and evidence. International Interactions, 47(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2020.1814767

36.

Owsiak

A. P.

Greig

J. M.

Diehl

P. F.

(2021). Making trains from boxcars: Studying conflict and conflict management interdependencies. International Interactions, 47(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2021.1848827

37.

Owsiak

A. P.

Mitchell

S. M.

(2019). Conflict management in land, river, and maritime claims. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.56

38.

Payne

(2011). Mastering the evidence: Improving fact finding by international courts. Environmental Law, 41(4), 1191–1220.

39.

Powell

E. J.

Mitchell

S. M.

(2022). Forum Shopping for the Best Adjudicator: Dispute Settlement in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies, 9(1), 7–33.

40.

Powell

E. J.

Wiegand

K. E.

(2023). The peaceful resolution of territorial and maritime disputes. Oxford University Press.

41.

Singer

J. D.

(1988). Reconstructing the correlates of war dataset on material capabilities of states, 1816–1985. International Interactions, 14(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050628808434695

42.

United Nations. (1997). Convention on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses. A/RES/51/229.

43.

Wiegand

K. E.

(2014). Mediation in territorial, maritime and river disputes. International Negotiation, 19(2), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-12341281

44.

Wiegand

K. E.

Powell

E. J.

(2011). Past experience, quest for the best forum, and peaceful attempts to resolve territorial disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(1), 33–59.

45.

Zorn

(2005). A solution to separation in binary response models. Political Analysis, 13(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi009

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB