Collaborative Research: What Do Leaders Want?: Collecting and Coding Issue Positions and Demands in the Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) Data, 1816-2010

摘要本研究探讨了国际冲突研究中存在的一个奇怪的悖论。大多数理论都是从问题或问题立场的分歧来解释国际冲突的，但很少有人真正研究导致国家冲突的特定类型的问题。这主要是由于缺乏关于各国争论的问题类型的良好数据。这项工作将通过收集1816年至2010年参与军事化冲突的所有行动者的所有突出问题的数据来缓解这一问题。对于争论中的每个问题，团队将对每个参与者在争论开始时的问题状态进行编码，每个参与者在问题上的初始立场，以及随着冲突的持续，这些立场是如何变化的。这些数据将使决策者和学者能够更精确地概括国际冲突的原因和后果，研究最有可能导致冲突的具体问题，以及随着各国展示其战斗能力和意愿，问题立场如何演变。摘要国际冲突学者都知道领土问题容易引发战争，而讨价还价模型为军事化冲突的发生和演变提供了理论路线图。然而，领土冲突研究通常将导致国家发生冲突的因素与国家发生冲突的原因混为一谈。与此同时，议价理论丰富的形式模型实际上无法得到检验，因为没有关于问题立场的适当数据。目前的军事化国家间争端（MID）数据集仅为我们提供了广泛的概括性措施，并且没有其他数据集可用于记录战斗人员随时间和跨国际体系的问题立场。该项目通过建立团队之前的项目来解决这个问题，这些项目收集和分析了关于军事化国家间争端的原始数据。该团队将收集、编码和分析1816年至2010年所有纠纷中的争议立场和争议立场变化数据。生成的相应数据集将提供有关争议方最初要求的信息，并记录这些要求在争议期间的演变情况。这些数据是讨价还价模型假设的核心，即国家对能力和决心的展示做出反应，而具体问题对那些认为领土威胁难以解决的人来说很重要。这个广泛的编码项目也将为众多研究生和本科生研究人员提供第一手经验。

General AbstractThis research investigates a strange paradox that persists in the study of international conflict. Most theories explain international conflict in terms of differences over issues or across issue positions, but few actually examine the particular types of issues lead states to fight. This is due primarily to the lack of good data on the types of issues over which states contend. This work will alleviate this problem by collecting data on all salient issues for all actors involved in militarized conflicts from 1816 to 2010. For each issue in contention the team will code the status of the issue at the beginning of the dispute for each actor, each actor's initial position on the issue, and how those positions change as the conflict persists. The data will provide policymakers and scholars the ability to generalize about the causes and consequences of international conflict with a greater level of precision, examining the specific issues most likely to lead to conflict and how issue positions evolve as states demonstrate their capabilities and willingness to fight.Technical AbstractInternational conflict scholars know territorial issues are war-prone while bargaining models provide a theoretical roadmap to the onset and evolution of militarized conflict. However, territorial conflict scholarship routinely conflates indicators over what leads states fight with indicators of why states are fighting. Meanwhile, bargaining theory's rich formal models cannot actually be tested because the appropriate data on issue positions does not exist. The current Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID) dataset gives us only broad summary measures, and no other data set is available to document issue positions of combatants over time and across the international system. This project addresses this by building on the team's previous projects that gathered and analyzed source data on militarized interstate disputes. The team will collect, code, and analyze issue positions and issue position change data within all disputes from 1816 to 2010. The corresponding data set generate will provide information about initial demands from disputants and will chronicle the evolution of these demands over the duration of the dispute. These data are central for bargaining model assumptions that states respond to demonstrations of capabilities and resolve, and specific issues are important for those arguing threats to territory are difficult to settle. This extensive coding project will also provide firsthand experience for numerous graduate and undergraduate student researchers.