Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:35:03.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aims, claims, and the bargaining model of war

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2019

Kenneth A. Schultz Open the ORCID record for Kenneth A. Schultz [Opens in a new window]  and
Henk E. Goemans
Kenneth A. Schultz*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stanford University, 616 Serra Mall, Encina Hall West 100, Stanford, CA 94305-6044, USA
Henk E. Goemans
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, 337 Harkness Hall, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although in principle states can bargain over the entire extent of their combined territory, we observe historically that states bargain within far more limited confines defined by well-bounded claims. We argue that this observation stems from the fact that states generally have limited territorial aims due either to limited benefits of obtaining additional territory and/or the costs of absorbing and controlling new territories and their inhabitants. Using a formal model, we show that introducing states with limited aims over territory has strategic implications for bargaining that have not been appreciated in canonical models that do not consider heterogeneity in state preferences. Whereas traditional models generally imply that small demands undermine the credibility of a challenger's threat, the existence of states with limited territorial aims makes limited demands credible, effective, and stable in the face of shocks to relative power. We then employ geospatial data on the geographic extent of territorial disputes in the period 1947–2000 to establish two results: the size of claims is weakly related to the relative power of disputants and unaffected by dramatic changes in power, and smaller claims are associated with a higher probability that the challenger will receive any concession.

Keywords

interstate bargainingterritorial conflict
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , November 2019 , pp. 344 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Scott F., and Carter, David B.. 2016. “The Historical Origins of Territorial Disputes.” American Political Science Review 110(4):675–98.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Spolaore, Enrico. 2003. The Size of Nations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Altman, Dan. 2017. “By Fait Accompli, Not Coercion: How States Wrest Territory from Their Adversaries.” International Studies Quarterly 61(4):881–91.Google Scholar
Aron, Raymond. 1966. Peace and War. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey S., and Sobel, Joel. 1987. “Equilibrium Selection in Signaling Games.” Econometrica 55(3):647–61.Google Scholar
Bils, Peter, and Spaniel, William. 2017. “Policy Bargaining and Militarized Conflict.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 29(4):647–78.Google Scholar
Brooks, Stephen G. 2007. Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the Changing Calculus of Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, David B., and Goemans, H. E.. 2011. “The Making of the Territorial Order: New Borders and the Emergence of Interstate Conflict.” International Organization 65(2):275–309.Google Scholar
China Historical Geographic Information Systems (CHGIS). 2016. “1820 Layers GBK Encoding, V6.” Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/2K4FHX.Google Scholar
Diehl, Paul, and Goertz, Gary. 1992. Territorial Change and International Conflict. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fazal, Tanisha. 2007. State Death. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994. “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes.” American Political Science Review 88(3):577–92.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49(3):379–414.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1997. “Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(1):68–90.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 2018. “Cooperation, Conflict, and the Costs of Anarchy.” International Organization 72(3):523–59.Google Scholar
Fravel, M. Taylor. 2008. Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China's Territorial Disputes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Michelle R., and Skaperdas, Stergios. 2000. “Conflict Without Misperceptions or Incomplete Information: How the Future Matters.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 44:793–807.Google Scholar
Gartzke, Erik. 2000. “Preferences and the Democratic Peace.” International Studies Quarterly 44(2):191–212.Google Scholar
Glaser, Charles L. 2010. Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logic of Competition and Cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goemans, H. E., and Schultz, Kenneth A.. 2017. “The Politics of Territorial Aims: A Geospatial Approach Applied to Africa.” International Organization 71(1):31–64.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, Diehl, Paul F., and Balas, Alexandru. 2016. The Puzzle of Peace: The Evolution of Peace in the International System. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gottfried, Matthew S., and Trager, Robert F.. 2016. “A Preference for War: How Fairness and Rhetoric Influence Leadership Incentives in Crises.” International Studies Quarterly 60(2):243–57.Google Scholar
Hall, Carolyn, and Perez Brignoli, Hector. 2003. Historical Atlas of Central America. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Hensel, Paul R., Allison, Michael, and Khanani, Ahmed. 2009. “Territorial Integrity Treaties and Armed Conflict Over Territory.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(2) (April):120–43.Google Scholar
Hensel, Paul R., McLaughlin Mitchell, Sarah, Sowers, Thomas E., and Thyne, Clayton L. II. 2008. “Bones of Contention: Comparing Territorial, Maritime, and River Issues.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(1) (February):117–43.Google Scholar
Herbst, Jeffrey Ira. 2000. States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Holsti, Kalevi J. 1991. Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648–1989. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K. 1996. Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K., Croco, Sarah E., and Appel, Benjamin J.. 2011. “Does International Law Promote the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes? Evidence From the Study of Territorial Conflicts Since 1945.” American Political Science Review 105(2):415–36.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K., and Allee, Todd L.. 2002. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyer, Eric. 2015. The Pragmatic Dragon: China's Grand Strategy and Boundary Settlements. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kevlihan, Rob. 2016. “Insurgency in Central Asia: A Case Study of Tajikistan.” Small Wars & Insurgencies 27(3):417–39.Google Scholar
Khong, Yuen Foong. 1992. Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Korman, Sharon. 1996. The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kydd, Andrew. 1997. “Sheep in Sheep's Clothing: Why Security Seekers Do Not Fight Each Other.” Security Studies 7(1) (Autumn):114–55.Google Scholar
Kydd, Andrew. 2000. “Trust, Reassurance and Cooperation.” International Organization 54(2) (Spring):325–57.Google Scholar
Kydd, Andrew H. 2005. Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Legro, Jeffrey W., and Moravcsik, Andrew. 1999. “Is Anybody Still A Realist?” International Security 24(2):5–55.Google Scholar
Michaela, Mattes. 2008. “The Effect of Changing Conditions and Agreement Provisions on Conflict and Renegotiation Between States with Competing Claims.” International Studies Quarterly 52(2):315–34.Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics.” International Organization 51(4):513–53.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D., de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, Siverson, Randolph M., and Smith, Alastair. 2006. “Selection Institutions and War Aims.” Economics of Governance 7(1):31–52.Google Scholar
Mylonas, Harris. 2012. The Politics of Nation-Building: Making Co-Nationals, Refugees, and Minorities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Narizny, Kevin. 2017. “On Systemic Paradigms and Domestic Politics: A Critique of the Newest Realism.” International Security 42(2) (Fall):155–90.Google Scholar
Polat, Necati. 2002. Boundary Issues in Central Asia. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers.Google Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2006. “War as A Commitment Problem.” International Organization 60(1):169–203.Google Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1999. In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosecranz, Richard N. 1986. The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Coalitions in the Modern World. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Saideman, Stephen M., and Ayres, R. William. 2008. For Kin Or Country: Xenophobia, Nationalism, and War. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. 2017. “Mapping Interstate Territorial Conflict: A New Data Set and Applications.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(7):1565–90.Google Scholar
Schweller, Randall L. 1996. “Neorealism's Status-quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?” Security Studies 5(3):90–121.Google Scholar
Senese, Paul D., and Vasquez, John A.. 2008. The Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shelef, Nadav. 2016. “Unequal Ground: Homelands and Conflict.” International Organization 70(1):33–63.Google Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart, and Stuckey, John. 1972. “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965.” In Peace, War, and Numbers, edited by Bruce, Russett, 19–48. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Snyder, Glenn H. 2002. “Mearsheimer's World-Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay.” International Security 27(1) (Summer):149–73.Google Scholar
Taliaferro, Jeffery W. 2001. “Security Seeking Under Anarchy: Defensive Realism Revisited.” International Security 25(3):128–61.Google Scholar
Tarar, Ahmer, and Leventoglu, Bahar. 2009. “Public Commitment in Crisis Bargaining.” International Studies Quarterly 53(3):817–39.Google Scholar
Trager, Robert F. 2010. “Diplomatic Calculus in Anarchy: How Communication Matters.” American Political Science Review 104(2):347–68.Google Scholar
Trager, Robert F. 2013. “How the Scope of A Demand Conveys Resolve.” International Theory 5(3):414–45.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of State, Office of the Geographer. 2018. “Global Large Scale International Boundary Detailed Polygons 2017Dec29. At https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/global-lsib-polygons-detailed-2017dec29, Accessed April 24.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 2000. “Bargaining and War.” American Journal of Political Science 44(3):469–84.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Zacher, Mark W. 2001. “The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the use of Force.” International Organization 55(2):215–50.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Schultz and Goemans supplementary material

Schultz and Goemans supplementary material 1

Download Schultz and Goemans supplementary material(File)
File 337.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schultz and Goemans supplementary material

Schultz and Goemans supplementary material 2

Download Schultz and Goemans supplementary material(File)
File 3.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Schultz and Goemans supplementary material

Schultz and Goemans supplementary material 3

Download Schultz and Goemans supplementary material(File)
File 466.4 KB