Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Conflict Resolution
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Set
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hensel, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Thyne, C. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Bones of Contention

Comparing Territorial, Maritime, and River Issues

Paul R. Hensel

Department of Political Science Florida State University, Tallahassee

Sara McLaughlin Mitchell

Department of Political Science University of Iowa, Iowa City

Thomas E. Sowers, II

Department of Political Science Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas

Clayton L. Thyne

Department of Political Science University of Kentucky, Lexington

Contentious issues are important sources of militarized conflict. This article advances an issue-based approach to world politics, focusing on disagreements over territory, maritime zones, and cross-border rivers. We characterize militarized conflict and peaceful techniques as substitutable foreign policy tools that states can adopt to resolve disagreements over issues, and we present hypotheses to account for issue management based on issue salience and recent interaction over the same issue. Empirical analyses reveal that states are more likely to use both militarized conflict and peaceful methods when the issue at stake is more salient, both when the general issue type is considered more salient and when the specific issue under contention has greater within-issue salience. Recent issue management also plays an important role, as histories of both militarized conflict and failed peaceful settlements increase pressure to take further action to settle the issue.

Key Words: contentious issues • conflict management • militarized disputes • territory • maritime • river

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 52, No. 1, 117-143 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002707310425
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Peace ResearchHome page
J. Pickering and E. F. Kisangani
The International Military Intervention Dataset: An Updated Resource for Conflict Scholars
Journal of Peace Research, July 1, 2009; 46(4): 589 - 599.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Conflict ResolutionHome page
H. E. Hansen, S. McLaughlin Mitchell, and S. C. Nemeth
IO Mediation of Interstate Conflicts: Moving Beyond the Global versus Regional Dichotomy
Journal of Conflict Resolution, April 1, 2008; 52(2): 295 - 325.
[Abstract] [PDF]