Does Force or Agreement Lead to Peace?: A Collection and Analysis of Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) Settlement, 1816 to 2001

该奖项是根据2009年美国复苏和再投资法案（公法111-5）资助的。本研究分析了实质性政治解决在结束国际冲突方面的有效性。最近关于和平协定的文献常常得出这样的结论：在国家间冲突之后，条约条款在决定和平的持久性方面作用不大。作者认为，这一结论是由于使用的数据集和测试不适合检查冲突后问题解决的作用。之前的研究考察的是谈判是否发生过，而不是实质性的协议是否真的是研究。以前的研究也集中在战争和致命冲突之后的和平协议上，可能忽略了许多避免冲突升级为战争的成功协议。主要研究人员计划收集和分析战争相关军事化州际争端（MID）数据集中所有谈判解决结果的数据。这些数据包括1816年至2001年间两个或两个以上国家之间的所有威胁、武力展示或武力使用。pi将检查每个冲突中存在争议的问题，然后将这些问题与结束冲突的协议相匹配。对这些数据的分析将采取多种形式，包括对各种解决方案的定性案例研究和对问题解决效果的统计分析。除了对和平协议文献的直接影响外，用该数据集完成的分析对研究竞争、领土冲突、讨价还价文献和基于更一般的合作和条约形成理论的研究项目的学术文献具有重要意义。这些文献都在分析MID数据时使用了二分法强加/协商解决变量。关于聚落类型的更丰富的信息将使这些理论得到更全面的检验。还将讨论目前和平协定文献中隐含的政策规定。目前的文献表明，能力的平衡控制着和平的可能性，因此，协议必须反映这种平衡才能持久。政策制定者在当前文献的基础上进行谈判，使用的是从严格挑选的案例样本中获得的知识，如果政治解决或执行机制确实可以防止争端升级为战争，这就特别不幸了。通过扩大和平协议研究的范围，无论是暂时的还是非战争的冲突，研究人员希望能更好地理解持久和平的必要条件。

This award is funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5).This research analyzes the effectiveness of substantive political settlements in ending international conflict. The recent literature on peace agreements often concludes that treaty terms matter little in determining the durability of peace following interstate conflict. The authors argue that this conclusion results from the use of datasets and tests that are ill-suited for examining the role of issue settlement following conflict. Previous research has examined whether negotiation took place, not whether a substantive agreement was actually research. Previous studies have also focused on the peace agreements that follow wars and deadly conflicts, possibly ignoring the many successful agreements that have avoided conflict escalation to war.The principal investigators plan to collect and analyze data on all negotiated settlement outcomes in the Correlates of War Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) dataset. These data include all threats, displays or uses of force between two or more countries from 1816 to 2001. The PIs will examine the issues at dispute in each conflict and will then match these issues to the agreement ending the conflict. Analysis of this data will take many forms, including qualitative case studies of the various settlements and statistical analyses of the effects of issue settlement.In addition to the immediate impact on the peace agreement literature, the analyses completed with this dataset have important implications for the scholarly literatures on studies of rivalry, territorial conflict, the bargaining literature, and research programs based on more general theories of cooperation and treaty formation. Each of these literatures has used the dichotomous imposed/negotiated settlement variable in analyses of MID data. Richer information on settlement types would allow more comprehensive tests of these theories.The implied policy prescriptions of the current peace agreement literature will also be addressed. The current literature suggests that the balance of capabilities controls the likelihood of peace, and agreements must therefore reflect that balance in order to be durable. Policymakers practicing negotiations based on the current literature are using knowledge gained from a severely selected sample of cases, which is particularly unfortunate if political settlements or enforcement mechanisms can indeed prevent disputes from escalating to war. By broadening the scope of peace agreement research, both temporally and for conflicts short of war, the researchers hope to provide a much better understanding of the necessary conditions for a durable peace.