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.