What Are They Fighting For? The Importance of Issues in International Conflict Research

7/25/2019 What Are They Fighting For? The Importance of Issues in International Conflict Research

1/13

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Peace Research.

http://www.jstor.org

What Are They Fighting for? The Importance of Issues in International Conflict ResearchAuthor(s): Paul F. Diehl

Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Aug., 1992), pp. 333-344Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/424285Accessed: 26-01-2016 22:04 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.

For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 200.12.184.4 on Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:04:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/424285http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/424285http://www.jstor.org/publisher/sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/13

?

Journalof Peace Research,

vol. 29, no.

3, 1992,

pp.

333-344

What

Are

They

Fighting

For?

The

Importance

of

Issues in

International

Conflict

Research*

PAUL

F.

DIEHL

Department

of

Political

Science,

University

of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign

Most

empirical

research on international

conflict has focused

on

national,

dyadic,

and

systemic

attributes o

understand tate behavior.

Following

he ideas

of

Vasquez

&

Mansbach,

his

study

argues

that

scholarsmust

ake nto account

he issuesand theirsalience

over which tatesare

n

dispute

n

order

to

explain

the

onset

and

escalation

of conflict.

The article

begins

with

a reviewof

the

most

prominent

data

sets and models

in

the

subfield.

Most of the

prominent

theoretical

approachesexplicitly

or

implicitly

gnore

he issues n

dispute.

Furthermore,

nly

a few

of

the

available onflict

data

sets

include

issue

components

and

even

then

only

in

a limited fashion.

Several reasons for

this

are

reviewed,

including

hose

related o

realpolitik,gnoring

he

decision-making

evel of

analysis,

and

methodological

difficulties.

There are some studies

that do look

at

issues

and their salience

when

trying

o

explain

he

incidence

and escalation

of

international

onflict. Almost

uniformly,

hese demonstrate

hat

foreign

policy

behavior aries

by

issue

area

and that states

are

more

willing

o

fight

or

issues

that

they regard

as

important.

The

remaining art

of the

study

s devoted o

demonstrating

ow issues

and theirsalience

can

affect

decisions

to

use

military

conflict

and

discussing

how these concerns

might

be

integrated

nto

international

conflict research.

Specific suggestions

are offered

concerning

ncorporating

ssues

in

research

design,

dentifying

ssues,

and

measuring

heirsalience.

1.

Introduction

The

traditional

pproach

n

international

e-

lations

has been

to

explain

state

behavior,

including

decisions

to use

military orce, by

reference to

national,

dyadic,

and

systemic

attributes

such as

regime

type,

arms

races,

and

polarity,

respectively.

Yet,

there

may

be little variation

n the relevant

attributes

across

different

cases

(some

ending

in

war,

some

not).

Little consideration

s

given

to

the

issues

or

their

salience

in

a

dispute

be-

tween states.

This fundamental

difference

(the

issue

in

dispute),

I

contend,

is an im-

portant

factor

in the decisions

to use

mili-

tary

force

and escalate

the

dispute

to

full-

scale war.

The

purpose

of

this

paper

is

to

demon-

strate that

scholars

of international

onflict

must

recognize

and

include in their

models

and

analyses,

the issues

and their salience

over which states

are

in

dispute.

Without

such

consideration,

there

may,

in most

cases,

be inherent

limits

to

our

ability

to

explain

and

predict

national

conflict

beha-

vior. In

making

this

case,

I wish

to demon-

strate

how

pervasive

his

ignorance

of

issues

and

their

salience

is in the

discipline;

I

explore

some reasons

why

these

aspects

have been

ignored,

identifying

both

practi-

cal and theoreticalrationales.

I

wish also to

demonstrate

that when

issues and salience

have

been

analyzed

by

a small number

of

scholars,

the

results

have

been

very

promis-

ing.

With that

in

mind,

I concludewith some

guidelines

and

suggestions

or

incorporating

issues and their

salience into

analyses

of in-

ternational

onflict.

Before

beginning

he

analysis,

t is

appro-

priate to define what is meant by an issue.

An

issue

can be

conceived

as 'a

disputed

point

or

question,

the

subject

of

a

conflict

or

controversy' Randle,

1987,

p.

1).1

An

issue

may

be

tangible,

such

as

controlover

a

piece

of

territory,

or

intangible,

such as racial

supremacy.

It

is

not

required

that

an

issue

be

stated

by

the

parties.

Yet

one should not

imply

that

any

correlate

of

war

(e.g.

arms

race)

is

an issue.

Rather,

an

issue

is

what

states choose

to

fight

over,

not the con-

ditions

that led to the choice

of

military

force as the means. Of course,a givensitu-

ation

may

include

more than

one issue

as

*

The

authorwould ike

to thank

he Correlates

f War

Project

members,

John

Vasquez,

Nils Petter

Gleditsch,

and three

anonymous

eviewers

or their

comments

and

suggestions.An earlierversionof this workwas pre-

sented at the Annual

Meeting

of

the

International

Studies

Association,

Washington,

DC,

1990.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

334

Paul F.

Diehl

well

as issues

that

are

tangible

and

intang-

ible.

The salienceof an

issue

is

the

degree

of

importance

attached to that

issue

by

the

actors

nvolved.

2.

Ignoring

Issues:

Some Rationales

It

may

seem

surprising

hat international

e-

lations scholars have

generally ignored

the

issues

in

a

situationwhen

seeking

to

explain

and

predict

national

behavior.

There

are

several

reasons,

however,

for

this

strategy.

The

primary

ationale

or

ignoring

he

pecu-

liar

issue

characteristics

f a

given

situation

can be traced

to the theoretical

orientation

of realpolitik,which s pervasive n the study

of

international

conflict and

international

relations

in

general.

According

to

Morgen-

thau

(1960),

it

is not useful

to consider

the

motivations

behind

the actions

of

decision-

makers.

Regardless

of

the

issues,

the

main

concern

in

any

conflict

is the maintenance

and enhancement

of

power.

Not

surpris-

ingly, Morgenthau

concentrated

the

study

of

international

elations

on

factors

such

as

alliances and

the

power

distribution

to

understand

behavior.

Modifications

y

Kap-

lan

(1957)

andothers

kept

the

power

politics

framework,

but

expanded

the

list of

concerns

o

include

system

level factors.

Vasquez

(1983a) argues

that

incorporat-

ing

issues

and

their

salience

violates

a

key

assumption

of

the

realpolitik

approach.

Some

might

contend

that

realpolitik

merely

defines all

issues

in conflict

as an

underlying

competition

for

power.

Yet

issues

are fun-

damentally

different

from

power.

On

the

one

hand,

issues are

a

discrete

concept,

representing he subjectof a conflictualre-

lationship,

whereas

power

is a

dynamic

con-

cept

representing

the

relationship

itself.

Issues

define

the

subject

of the

conflict;

power

determines

the

behaviors

and

out-

come

of

that

conflict.

There

is

also

rarely

a

recognition

hat

the

importance

of

a

confrontation

an

vary; any

loss

or

gain

of

power

is

significant

n the

quest

for the

maintenance

nd

enhancement

of

power.

Thus,

whether

the confrontation

involves territorial

or economic

interest

is

considered largely irrelevant. A major

problem

with the

realpolitik pproach,

how-

ever,

is that

rivalries

often

go

on for

decades

without

war,

suggesting

that other factors

must

be considered o understand

when that

struggle

s manifested

n

the use

of

military

force.

A second

rationale,

closely

related

to the

realpolitik

orientation,

s

the

belief that the

black

box of

decision-making

hould remain

closed

at least

at

this

stage

in

the inter-

national

conflict

field

(Singer,

1980).

Rather,

investigators

hould first

pursue

he

explanatorycapability

offered

by

the actor

and

system

attributes.

By

this

strategy,

scholars

can

reject

some alternative

expla-

nations of

war and reduce

the

plausible

hypotheses to a manageablenumber and

scope.

When we understand

ow these attri-

butes affect

decisions,

scholars

may

then

explore

how

the

decision-makingprocess

influences

he choice

of alternative

policies.

To

some,

this

may

appear

to

be

a

post

hoc

justification

or

a

research

strategy.

At

very

least,

the

stage

at which

decision level

concerns

are

included,

including

the issues

and

their

salience

in

disputes,

has not been

reached

by

most

scholars

n

the

field.

A third

and more

practical

consideration

for

ignoring

issues in internationalconflict

research

concerns

data.

A

significant

por-

tion

of

quantitative

esearch

s

data-driven.

The

availability

of the Correlates

of War

(COW)

Project

data

sets,

for

example,

con-

ditions

the

type

of

questions

asked,

the

vari-

ables

selected,

their

indicators,

and

the

techniques

of

analysis.

This

is not

merely

a

preference

or an inductive

versusdeductive

research

strategy.

Rather,

it is

the

path

of

least

resistance

for

those who

wish

to

con-

duct empirical research. Scholars also

become

socialized

by

the

data sets

they

work

with and

their

thinking

tends

to

be

stifled

by

that

familiarity.

As is evident

below,

few of the most

commonly

used data

sets

in conflict

research

make reference

to

the

issues

in a conflict

event.

Perhaps

not

surprisingly

hen,

those

who

adopt

those

data

sets

generally

gnore

those

dimensions,

as

they

do think about

them

or do not have

the resources

or time

to collect the

relevant

information

n order

to

identify

the

issues

involved.

Despite

the

parameters

mposed

by

exist-



4/13

WhatAre

They

Fighting

For?

335

ing

data

collections,

limitations

are

more

than a matter

of

availability.

Another

reason

that

scholars

have

ignored

ssues are

the

difficulties

nvolved

n identification nd

measurement. Before one can decide the

salience

of

a

dispute,

the issues involved

must

be identified. This

may

sound

simple

enough, yet

there

are several

complications.

Unlike most

other work

in

political

science,

conflict

studies nvolve the

analysis

of

events

over

a

broad

spatial

and historical

domain

(e.g. Levy, 1983a).

Interviews

with

elites

or

references

o

appropriate

documents

o

find

what

the

dispute

was

about

are

impossible

n

many

cases

and often

difficult

at best.

Further confounding the identification

problem

is

that

the

confrontation

may

involve

more

than

one issue

and/or the

issue(s)

involved

are

perceived

differently

by

participants

in

the

dispute

(especially

problematic

when

only

ethnocentric

histori-

cal

sources

are used

or

available).

It is

even

more

problematic

o

develop

an

empirical

measure of the salience

of

those

issues

involved

in

the

conflict.

In

some

con-

flicts,

the

stakes

in the conflict

are not

as

tangible

as

might

be the

case

with conflicts

over territoryor markets.Scholarsalsocan-

not

easily

point

to

characteristics

of

the

issues

to

identify

which,

if

any,

are

most

salient.

Furthermore,

one

runs into

the

problem

of

perception;

it

is

difficult to

determine

f what

appears

objectively

to

be

very

salient

is

perceived

as such

by

decision-

makers

(or

vice

versa).

Further difficulties

nvolve

the

compara-

bility

of measuresacross

time,

space,

and a

variety

of

issues.

This is a

problem

in

any

cross-sectional

historical

analysis,

but it

is

more

acute in

dealing

with

issues

and their

salience.

If one

were to

determine

hat

two

disputes

between the

same

two states

were

primarily

over ethnic

concerns,

how would

one

determine

he difference

n salience

be-

tween the

one

dispute

and

the other? In

ad-

dition,

it

might

be

difficult,

perhaps

mposs-

ible,

to

develop

operational

indicators

of

issue salience

on

an

interval

cale

that

would

apply equally

well

to different

issues,

such

as

territory

and

economic

resources. The

solutionsto these problemsaredifficultand

often

unsatisfactory;

not

surprisingly,

most

researchers

do

not

try

or

are unsuccessful n

resolving

hese

problems.

3. Data andModels

In this

section

of the

article,

I offer

several

examples

of how

issues

and

salience

are

ignored

n

international

onflict

research.

In

doing

this,

I focus both on actual

models

and

sets of

analyses

on

the

same

topic

as

well

as

major

data

collections

used to con-

duct

empirical

research

n

the

discipline.

I

begin

firstwith

an

analysis

of the

major

data

sets

in international elations.

According

o

a

recent

survey(McGowan

et

al.,

1988),

the

two most frequentlycited conflictdata sets

are those

of

the COW

Project

and the

Con-

flict

and Peace Data

Bank

(COPDAB).

Among

the most

prominent

of the

COW

data

sets are the interrelated

collections

of

interstate wars

(Small

&

Singer, 1982)

and

militarized

nterstate

disputes

(Gochman

&

Maoz,

1984).

Each

of these data sets

con-

tains

information

on

violent interactionsbe-

tween

states.

In the case

of

the

latter,

it

includes

all

threats

or

actual

uses

of

military

force between

states,

of which some

have

escalatedto full-scalewar. In neithercase,

however,

is there

any

record

of what

issues

were

involved

in

the war

or

dispute,

much

less

any

indicator

of the

importance

attached o the

issues

by

the

participants.2

t

might

be noted that the BCOW

militarized

interstate

crises data set

(Leng

&

Singer,

1988),

a

subset

of

the

dispute

data

set,

already

ncludes

the

location(s)

of

the crises

as well

as a brief narrative

ummary

eveal-

ing

the

source

of

dispute,

allowing

some

analysis

on

issues.

Within he

dispute

data

set,

one findsthat

within

a

single

dispute

with

two

or

more

participants

here

is

great

variation in

the

level

of

hostility

exhibited

by

the

partici-

pants

(some

states

choose

only

to threaten

the

use

of

force

and

others

actually

use mili-

tary

force,

while

other

states

are involved n

ongoing

and

reciprocal

uses

of

military

orce

recognized

as

wars).

Yet,

there is no con-

sideration

that differences

in the issues

involved,

and their

salience,

may

vary

acrossthe participants.This mayseem sur-

prising

to some

in that the COW

Project



5/13

336

Paul F.

Diehl

traces much

of its

intellectual

history

to the

work of

Richardson,

who

dutifully

recorded

why

each

side

in his

deadly

quarrels

ought

(1960).

The COPDAB data set is differentfrom

most

COW

collections in that

individual

events are recorded rather

than

aggrega-

tions

of

events,

which constitute

disputes

and wars.

Beyond recording

he

level

of co-

operation

or conflict exhibited

by

the

par-

ticipants

n

the

event,

COPDAB

sorts those

events into

eight

issue

types.

Furthermore,

the

coding

scheme

allowsfor

the

recognition

that there

may

be

more

than one issue

involved

in

the

event,

although

there

are

only codings for one primary and one

secondary

ssue.

Although

these

entries

are more reflec-

tive

of

issues

than the COW

scheme,

there

are

still several

shortcomings.

First,

there

is

an

assumption

of

issue

symmetry

between

the

participants

n

the

event;

that

is,

it

is

assumed that the issues

involved

for

each

side are the

same. In

fact,

they

may

be

quite

different.For

example,

a

closing

of

the Suez

Canal

or the Straits

of

Hormuz

might

be

viewed

primarily

as

an

economic

issue

(energy concerns) to some states (e.g.

United

States),

but a

security

issue

for

others

(e.g.

Israel

or

Iraq).

Second,

the

cod-

ing

gives

no

indication

of

the salience

of the

issues to the

participants.

Even

if

two events

sharedthe

same issue

type,

this

is not

to

say

that

the issue had the

same

importance

n

both

instances.

In

addition,

each

side

may

attribute

different

significance

o the same

issue,

again

underlining

he

possible

asym-

metry

of

perceptions

and concerns.

BeyondCOW andCOPDAB, most inter-

national relations

data

sets

do not

concern

themselves

with issues

and their salience.

In

fact,

a

glance

at

the

data sets

funded

by

the

Data

Development

for

International

Re-

lations

(DDIR) Project

reveals

that

few

give

attention

to the

issues

and motivations

behind state actions.

More attention

is

devoted

to the

recording

of

dates,

actors,

their

attributes,

and to

aggregated

events.

There are two

exceptions

n

this

enterprise.

A data set

on

interventions

see

Pearson &

Baumann, 1989)codes on a nominalscale

the reason

for

the

intervention;

these

reasons

resemble

the

issue

types

noted

for

the COPDAB set.

The data

set

on

inter-

national crisis behavior

(Wilkenfeld

&

Brecher,

1989)

records the issues involved

and the

geographic

ocation of the crisisas

well

as

the

geostrategic

alienceof

the

crisis.

In

addition,

there is

also

a record of

the

greatest

threat

perceived

by

the

decision-

makers

of

the crisis. The scale runs from

low-level threats

o

threats o existence.

Just

as the data sets in the field

of inter-

national

relationsdo not

generally

reflect

a

concern for the

issues

of a

confrontation,

neither do the

most

prominent

and

influen-

tial

models that

seek to

understand he

con-

ditionsforwar. A reviewof the mostsignifi-

cant

investigations

n

international

conflict

research

(see

Midlarsky,

1989)

reveals

that

little

or no

attention

s

paid

to the sources

of

dispute

as an

explanation

of

why

states

go

to

war. Of

all

the

more than 120 COW

Project

articles

that

test

hypotheses

about inter-

national

conflict

(Diehl,

forthcoming),

ess

than 5

could

even

remotely

be

judged

as

dealing

with

issues and even then their

role

is

secondary

n

the

models

and

analyses.

A

closer

look

at some

of

the

major

approaches

to internationalconflict, both quantitative

and

non-quantitative,

illustrates these

points

in

detail.3

Many

approaches

are based on the distri-

bution

of

power

and

changes

in

power

to

account or

the

onset

of

war. At

the

national

level of

analysis,power cycle

theory (Doran

&

Parsons,

1980)

ooks

at

changes

n a

given

state's

power

over time

and

identifies

key

inflection

points

at which

war is

more

likely.

The

power

transition

model

(Organski

&

Kugler,1980;see also Gilpin,1981on hege-

monic

transitions)

looks

at the

process

of

change

in

power

between

a

state

and

its

challenger

to

predict

the conditions

under

which

war occurs. The

expected

utility

model

(Bueno

de

Mesquita,

1981)

posits

rational

choices

based

on

power

distri-

butions,

alliances,

and

geographic

distance;

specific

erritorial

r other

goals

are

not

part

of the

calculation.4

At the

systemic

evel,

it

is the distribution

of

power

globally

that

accounts

or

war,

although

here is

consider-

able disagreement over the exact effect

(Deutsch

&

Singer,

1964;

Waltz,

1964).

Not



6/13

What

Are

They Fighting

For? 337

surprisingly,

hese

models based

on

the

real-

politik approach

do not

include

issue com-

ponents.

Even those

approaches

hat

do not

promi-

nently include the power distribution end

to

ignore

issues.

Game-theoretic

models

(for

a

review,

see

O'Neill,

1990)

posit

that

the

structure of the

games

and the

distri-

bution

of

payoffs

influence he outcomes

of

interactions between

states;

strategies

for

maximization are not influenced

by

the

source of

the

dispute

between

the

players.

Other models

look at

domestic

conditions

o

explain

decisions

for war.

Yet,

almost

by

definition,

the

external

basis

for

dispute

is

irrelevant; tates aremotivatedbyeconomic

growth processes

(Choucri

&

North,

1975)

or

domestic

turmoil

(Levy,

1989b)

to

use

military

orce

abroad.

Earlier,

I

noted that

one

rationale

for

ignoring

ssues

was a

strategy

of not

looking

at

the

decision-making

evel.

Nevertheless,

those

approaches

hat

have

peered

into the

black box have not found

issues

in its

con-

fines. Some models

(e.g.

Allison,

1971;

Van

Evera,

1984)

focus

on

organizational

characteristicsor

routines to

understand

how decisions to use military force are

made. Others

concentrate

on the

psycho-

logical

effects on

groups 'groupthink'

e.g.

Janis,

1982)

or individual

decision-makers

'misperception'

(see

Levy,

1983b).

In all

cases,

the

subject

of the

dispute

is not

con-

sidered

a critical

part

of the

motivation

for

using

military

orce.

4. New Horizons:

Promising

Research

on

Issues

The

scholarly

iterature

n

international

e-

lations

on

issues

comes

primarily

rom the

subfield

of

foreign

policy

studies,

not

inter-

national

conflict.

This is

largely

because

of

the intellectual

roots

of Rosenau

(1967),

who offered

a

typology

of

foreign policy

issue

areas.

Several

studies

(Brewer,

1973;

Mansbach

&

Vasquez,

1981b;

O'Leary,

1976;

Wish,

1980)

have

demonstrated

hat

foreign policy

behavior

varies

according

o

issue

type,

suggesting

that

in international

conflict researchstrategiesto ignore issues

are

misguided.

Broad historical

studies

(Holsti,

1991;

Luard,

1968)

confirm

his

by

noting

that the

primary

ssues

of

war

have

changed

over

time;

territory

s now

less

a

subject

for

war,

whereas issues

of

national

self-determinationhave assumed a greater

prominence

in

the

modern era.

Other

foreign policy

analysts suggest

that

issues

become the

units

of

analysis (O'Leary,

1976)

or the basis

for

a

paradigm

for

the

foreign policy process

(Zimmerman,1973).

The

call for an issue-based

paradigm

was

realizedwith the

publication

of Mansbach&

Vasquez's

In Search

of Theory (1981a).

In

that

work,

an

approach

hat looks

to

issues

to define

the context and

interaction

of

actors s advocated pp. 72-73):

An issue

paradigm

ooks first

at

how

issues are

defined,

what values

they

are

supposed

o

embody,

the

proposals

hat are

being

made

for their

resol-

ution,

and

the issue

position

each actor

akes

on

the

various

proposals ....

A

realist

agenda

.

. would

focus

primarily

on the

following

questions:

What

are

the

ingredients

of

power

and

how

do

they

change?

How do

changes

in the distribution

of

power

affect the behavior of

nations?.

...

The

questions

uggestedby

the

issue

paradigm

re

quite

different . . . the first

question

is how

objects

are

converted

nto

political

takes;

hat s the

manner

n

which

value

s

attributed

o

objects.

The

assumption

of diverseandmultiplevaluesencouragesheanaly-

sis of diverse

stakes,

the

impact

of

differences

among

them on actors'

perceptions

and

behavior,

and the manner n

which

they

are

tied to

discrete

issues.

. . .

Variables

like the

scope

of

issues,

their

salience,

the nature

of stakes that constitute

hem,

and the manner

n

which these stakes are

linked,

will

provide

mportant

lues

to

the

researcher.

There

are

several

problems

with the

Mansbach &

Vasquez approach.

First,

it

seems

to throw

out the realist

baby

with

its

dirty

bath water. That

is,

an issue

paradigm

rejects

the

potentialutility

of

realist

concep-tions and

adopts

a

position

that issues are

not

simply important,

but most

important.

Second,

despite

initial

positive

reviews

and

more

than

a decade

of

time,

the

issue

para-

digm approach

has

not

germinated

uch that

its use

is

seriously

evident,

much

less wide-

spread,

in

the

discipline.

This

may

be,

in

part,

for

the reasons

noted

above.

Whatever

the

explanation,

however,

it is

clear that

most issue-based

analyses

have

not,

nor are

they likely

in the near

future,

dominated he

study of foreign policy, internationalcon-

flict,

and international

elations n

general.



7/13

338

Paul F.

Diehl

Nevertheless,

there are

several

clues

in

the

work of Mansbach&

Vasquez

to

indi-

cate how

issues and their characteristics

affect

nationalbehaviorand

several

empiri-cal studies reveal additional

insights.

One

characteristic

cited

by

Vasquez

(1983b)

is

the

tangibility

of issue

involved;

he

argues

that

the

more

intangible

an

issue,

the

greater

the

conflict

involved.

In

a later

work,

Vasquez

& Mansbach

1984)

contend

that

some issues

give

rise to

conflict

on

the

basis

of the

characteristics

f the

actors

and

their

relationship

(i.e.

national and

dyadic

attributes),

whereas other issues

promote

conflict

on

the basis of the costs

and

benefits

of the stakesinvolved.

Another

theoretical

approach

that

uses

issues to

explain

conflict

behavior has its

roots

in the

study

of

voting

behavior.

Morrow

(1986) develops

a

spatial

model

of

conflict

n which the

issue

positions

of

states

on a

given

set of

issues

in a

dispute

are

arrayed

n

an n-dimensional

pace.

The

pos-

itions reflect

the

preferred

outcomes

of the

actors and reflect the

salience

of the issues

to the

states.

Such

analyses

also reflect the

thinking

of

'field

theory',

which

sought

to

explain

and

predict

behaviorbased on the

similarities and

differences

between states

(Wright,

1955);

in this

application,

issue

positions,

not national

attributes,

are

the

relevantdimension.

Another

key

theoretical

issue

has

been

how

various

issues

in

a

dispute

might

be

brought

together

(McGinnis,

1986).

In

par-

ticular,

a

new issue

might

be

brought

nto

a

dispute (issue linkage)

that

can

assist

in

the

resolution

of

the

conflict,

as

trade-offs

and

compromisesare madeon various ssuepos-

itions;

the

willingness

of the United

States

to dismantle

missiles

in

Turkey

(an

initially

unrelated

issue)

helped

resolve

the Cuban

Missile Crisis.

Morgan

1990)

combines

this

idea

with the

spatial

model

approach

sug-

gested by

Morrow

(1986)

to

look

at

crisis

bargaining.

The result

s

that

issue

linkage

s

more successful

when

issue salience

varies

for

actors;

it is

very

difficult

to

achieve

compromises

when the issue

in

dispute

is

very important

to both

sides

or the

dispu-

tant's issue positions are fundamentally

incompatible.

Although

these studies

do

not

directly

deal with

the causes

of

war,

they

suggest

a

confirmation

of

the

Vasquez

&

Mansbach

notion

that

how

issues are linked

influences whether conflict resolution is

possible.

The

inability

to link issues and

forge

compromise

especially

when the

issue

salience

is

high) may

lead states

to

use mili-

tary

force

instead.

The

previous

analyses

were

not based on

any

kind

of

systematic empirical

work,

although

hey

are

suggestive

of a

number

of

theoretical

insight. Empirical

work

on

issues

and

conflict

has

had

to

clear

many

of

the hurdles

noted above and

as

such is more

limited.

One

implicit

strategy

has been to

identify a set of cases that share the same

issue in

dispute.

Mandel

(1980)

focuses

on

disputes

over borders. He looks at national

attributesand

characteristics

f

the

border

dispute

(e.g.

those

based

on

ethnic

concerns)

to

identify

those most

prone

to

conflict. The results

are

supportive

of

the

notion

that issue characteristics

re

import-

ant.

Goertz

&

Diehl

(1992)

have

conducted

a

number

of

studies

seeking

to understand

he

incidence of

military

conflict

in territorial

changes.A consistent hemein theirwork is

that the

importance

of

the territorial

unit

exchanged

conditions

the

willingness

of the

actors

to use

military

force.

Territorial m-

portance,

in

their

view,

defines

the

salience

involved

for

each

party

to

the

exchange.

They

make

a

distinction

between the

intrin-

sic

and

relational

importance

of

territory.

The former

refers

to the inherentvalue

that

a

piece

of

territory

holds

for

the

sovereign

(this

value

may

be

largely

economic).

In

contrast,relational mportance efers to the

different

value that

the

territory

may

have

for

different

participants.

That

is,

some

ter-

ritories

may

be considered

to have little

value

for

some

states,

but

great

value

for

others;

one

is

drawn

o ethnic

concerns

and

geographic

considerations,

or

example,

to

identify

this

type

of

importance.

The

key

point

about

relational

mportance

s that

the

salience

in

a

dispute

does

not

have

to

be

the

same for each

side.5 By

using

different

and

complementary

measures

of

importance,

one gets a clearerpictureof the saliencefor

both

sides,

only

some

of whichis

shared.



8/13

What

Are

They

Fighting

For? 339

The

results of the

Diehl

& Goertz

analyses

are consistent

with the

expectation

that

the

greater

the value

of

the

territory

n

a

territorial

change

the

more

willing

states

are to

fight

for their interests. In cases of

national

independence,

colonial

powers

were less

willing

to

give

up

their

dependent

territories

when those areas

yielded

strong

economic benefits

or

had

other

great

value

(Diehl

&

Goertz,

1991a;

Goertz &

Diehl,

1992).

In

territorial

exchanges

between

states,

territorial

importance

again

con-

ditioned

the likelihood

of

peaceful

versus

violent

exchanges

(Diehl

&

Goertz,

1991b;

Goertz &

Diehl,

1992).

Indeed,

the

import-

ance of a territory n an exchangealso pre-

dicted

future

conflict

between the

same

par-

ties

to

the

exchange

Goertz

&

Diehl,

1990).

The results

of

the Diehl

&

Goertz

analyses

showed

that

relational

mportance

was

consistently

a better

predictor

of

con-

flict

than intrinsic

importance,

although

both were

significant

in

a number

of

analyses. Ignoring

measurement

problems,

this

suggests

that

one

must look

at how

different

actors view

the situation

rather

than assume

that issue

salience

is

constant

acrossparticipants. naddition,their results

reveal

that while

the salience

was

a

key

factor,

other

factors

were

more

significant,

including

the

power

distribution

and inter-

national

norms. This

confirms

that

issue

salience must

be

considered,

but

not alone

as it will

likely

be

only

one

piece

in the

puzzle

and not

necessarily

he

most

import-

ant

one.

Despite

some

success,

the

previous

strat-

egy

is best

used

when

there is

one

primary

issue;yet thismaylimit the set of cases that

can

be studied.

Furthermore,

it

assumes

that,

a

priori,

disputes

of

different

issue

types

exhibit

different

patterns

of behavior.

A more

ambitious

task

is

to

identify

issue

salience

across

different

kinds

of

disputes.

Gochman&

Leng

(1983)

identify

the

issues

involved

in

conflict,

measure

their

import-

ance,

and relate

these

to the

chances

for

escalation.

From

a subset

of

militarized

dis-

putes,

they

classify

he

disputes

according

o

the

precipitating

ssue

of

the

dispute,

and

then assess how vital the issue was (effec-

tively

this

is an indication

of

salience).

Even

given

the crudeness

of

the

measurement,

they

find that

vital

interests

at

stake and

physical

threats

lead to

escalation

of hos-

tility.

5.

Incorporating

ssues:

Some

Guidelines

Unfortunately,

the

studies

reviewed above

are the

exceptions

o the

traditional

mode

of

research

and

even

then

only

begin

to

address

ssues

in a

tangential

ashion. Incor-

porating

issues

into

international

conflict

research

will

require

several

changes

in the

way

scholars

have

previously

designed

models

of

war

and collected

data.

5.1

Research

Design

For issues

in a

dispute

o

help

us understand

international

onflict,

few dramatic

hanges

are

necessary

in

conventional

models

or

approaches

to war. Mansbach

&

Vasquez

(1981a)

have

argued

hat a new

paradigm

s

necessary

in which

issues become

the cen-

terpiece.

Yet,

this is

largely

an untested

dea

and one

that

may

not

promote

the

cumula-

tion

of

knowledge

about

conflict,

at least

in

the

near

future.

Despite

limitations

with the

realpolitikapproach,it is not necessaryto

abandon

completely

that

paradigm.

What

should

happen

instead

is the

integration

of

issues

into

the

power

politics

model

(although

Mansbach

&

Vasquez

might

argue

that such

an

incorporation

ecessarily

results

in

a

paradigm

hift).

In

one

sense,

I

consider

the

issues

to be another

variable

for inclusion

in

most

models

of

war.

In

another

sense,

issue

salience

could

be

another

'loose'

necessary

condition

to

be

identified

on the

willingness

dimension

of

national

behavior

Most

&

Starr,

1989).

The

assumption

s that

when the

stakes are

high

enough,

states

will

be

willing

to use

military

force

to achieve

their

goals.

This is not

to

say

that

high

stakes

always

mean

war;

such

a

condition

is

not sufficient.

States

may

find

other

ways

short

of war to achieve

their

goals

(i.e.

threats or

compromise)

or other

necessary

conditions

may

be absent. Fur-

thermore,

the

presence

of

opportunity

and

otherconditions

may

lead states

on occasion

to launchmilitaryattackseven when issue

salience

s not

high.

This

may

be

particularly



9/13

340 Paul F. Diehl

the

case when the costs are

low,

as

when one

side has

an

overwhelmingpreponderance

f

power.

This is also not to

say

that issues

and their

salience will exercise a

greater

influence

than alliancesor armsraces

on

behavior

or

example.

Given

previous

indings,

national,

dyadic,

and

systemic

attributeswill be

more

important

n

determining

he

likelihood

of

war.

Rather,

any

model

may

be

prone

to

certainkinds of mistaken

predictions

until it

takes into account what states

are

fighting

over and how

important

t is

to them. For

example,

the issue salience in a

dispute

may

be

helpful

in

sorting

out

which

cases

go

to

war among all those that involve positive

expected

utility

for the initiators

Bueno

de

Mesquita,

1981).

One

might

question

how

essential

it is

to

incorporate

ssues and their

salience

in

all

internationalrelations

or conflict

analyses.

This is

clearly

one of those

questions

that

can

only

be answered

after more

extensive

empirical

analyses.

Furthermore,

one can

reasonablyexpect

that

importance

of issues

will

vary

according

to the

theoretical

concerns

of a

particular

study.

Indeed,

as

noted above, other concernsmay override

the

impact

of

high

or low salience.

Most

importantly,

there

may

be some

relation-

ships

that

are so

powerful

as to

make

the issue

component

largely

irrelevant.

Although

these are

likely

to be

rare occur-

rences,

one can

point perhaps

o the

strong

'democracies

don't

fight

each

other'

finding

that seems

to

supersede

any

other con-

ditions

for war

(Maoz

&

Russett,

1992).

5.2 IssueIdentification

Once

scholars

make

a theoretical

decision

to

integrate

issues

into

their

frameworks,

hey

must

develop appropriate

methodological

strategies

to

incorporate

them

in actual

research.

A

prerequisite

for

incorporating

issues into

international

relations

research

is the identification

of those issues

in

the

relevant contexts

under

study.

Classifying

those

issues

clearly

depends

on the

research

question

at

hand;

thus,

scholars

might

use

a

different schemeif

they

were

studying

mili-

tarizedcrisesversusbargaining trategies n

trade.

Preparing

n issue

typology

o be

part

of

a

data set

is also

problematic

s the

theor-

etical

questions

addressedwith that datawill

vary,

albeit

within

certain

parameters.

Therefore,

it

would

be invalid

to

claim that

any typology

was suitablefor all

purposes.

Nevertheless,

there are several

general

approaches

o

the

problem.

The

simplest

typology

is

one

based

on

issue substance.

In this

approach,

the

issue

(or issues)

in

dispute

is

placed

in one

of

several conventional

categories

of

issue

areas,

e.g.

economic,

political,

or

social.

For

example,

Wilkenfeld

& Brecher

(1989)

place

issues

into five

categories:

military/

security,

political/diplomatic,

conomic/de-

velopmental, cultural/status,and other. A

second

approach

s

to move

away

from

sub-

stance

per

se and

develop

issue structures

according

to some more

general

scheme

about

the effects

or

characteristics

f

those

issues. Some

of

the relevant

dimensions

might

be

tangible

vs.

intangible

issues

(Rosenau,

1967),

asymmetry

of

issue

salience,

or the relative issue

positions

of

the

disputants

(Morrow, 1986).

A

third

approach

s one that

allows the scholar the

flexibility

to define the

typology according

to preordained criteria or new criteria

defined

by

the scholar.

The

development

of

artificial

intelligence

now

permits

(with

dramatic

improvements

on the

horizon)

computational

ystems

to

analyze

narratives

of events

and

code

those narratives

accord-

ing

to

the issue

involved

(or

any

number

of

different

variables),

based on

an

established

computerprogram

with

the

appropriate

ri-

teria.

A serious

difficulty

with issue

identifi-

cation is that the issue identified by

the

scholar

may

not be

the one

that is influenc-

ing

the decisional

calculus

of national

leaders.

What is

important

are

not the

issues,

but the

leadership'sperception

of the

issues.

To

get

at the

leadership'sperception,

one could

do a

content

analysis

of

speeches

and

statements

to

identify

the issues

men-

tioned

and

later the

relative

salience

of

those concerns.

The identification

of the

issues

in a dis-

pute

and

thie

use of

them in

an

analysis

shouldonlybe viewedas a preliminarytep.

Scholars

may

first

discover

thatsome issues



10/13

WhatAre

They

Fighting

For?

341

are more

prone

to

conflict escalation than

others.

Yet,

a

simple

delineationof

military

conflict

patterns

by

issue

type

tells us little

about

why

these

patterns

exist.

Lacking

in

mosttypologies swhatcharacteristicsf the

issue

make it more

likely

to

promote

uses

of

military

force.

Also

absent is a

recognition

that

different ssues

may

share some charac-

teristic hat

make

them

equally

ikely

to

pro-

mote

violence.

Finally,

the

same

issue

may

prompt

different behavior because

of vari-

ation

along

one

of the issue characteristic

dimensions.Salience s

one

of

the character-

istics

of

issues that

likely

influences

the

chances

for

war.

5.3

Measuring

ssue Salience

First,

it is

important

o

point

out that indi-

cators of issue

salience

in

a

dispute

should

not

assumea

complete

symmetryamong

the

participants.

A

confrontation

may

threaten

the vital interests

of

one

'tate,

with dramati-

cally

fewer and less

ser

ous

consequences

for

its

opponent.

One

solution

is to derive

measures

of

salience

for

each

participant.

Asymmetry

of

salience

may explain

why

some

actors are more

willing

to use

military

force than others (George et al., 1971).

Another

is to

develop

a commonmeasure

of

salience

and

one that reflects

differences

across

actors;

Goertz

&

Diehl's

(1990)

use

of

intrinsic

and relational

mportance

s con-

sistent

with

this.

With

the

precedingqualification

n

mind,

there are

several

strategies

and

examples

of

measurement.

If the research

question

involves

a

set

of

cases

sharing

he same

pri-

mary

issue

in

dispute

(e.g.

territorial

or

ethnic

issues),

then

there are various

possi-

bilities for

constructing

indicators. One

might

easily

develop

measures that

reflect

variations

n

salience. The most

applicable

measure

acrosscontexts

would be

measures

of

geographic

proximity

of

the issue site

(if

indeed one can

pinpoint

a

location).

The

rationale s that the

closer the location to

a

state,

the more

important

hat

issue

will be

to the

state. Events

nearby

have a

greater

psychological

and

direct

impact

on

states

than those that take

place

on the other side

of the globe.

Despite

the

utility

of the

geographicprox-

imity

measure,

this is

only

a

supplemental

measureand

may

only

represent

one

dimen-

sion of

the salience in a

dispute.

Additional

measures

specific

to

the issue

involved are

desirable. In territorialchanges, Goertz &

Diehl

(1990)

use the size and

the

population

living

within

its boundariesto

indicate the

intrinsic

mportance

of

a

given piece

of

terri-

tory;

the

assumption

s

that the

stakes are

greater

when

those values

are

very high,

as

states

have

more

to

gain

or

lose.

For re-

lational

importance,

beyond

geographic

proximity,

they

code

whether the

territory

exchanged

was homelandor

dependent

ter-

ritory,

with the

former

havinggreater

value

for the actors nvolved.

When

military

or

security

issues

were

involved,

scholars could use the

strategic

implications

of the

outcome

of

the

dispute

for

each

actor

to measure

salience.

If

the

issues

involvedare

economic,

then the value

of the

resources,

trade

flows,

or

the

concerns

affected

by

the

dispute

are

possible

indicators. Diehl

& Goertz

(1991a)

use

trade

flows

with

a

dependent territory

to

indicate

the

relational

importance

of

those

areas

to

colonial

powers.

These

are all

examplesof how the issuesaliencemightbe

measured;

some

combination

of

these or

multiple

indicators

might

be

appropriate.

The actualchoice

of

indicators s

conditional

on the

problem

and

issues

at

hand.

Measurement

problems

become

more

problematic

when

studying

conflict that

involves

different issues across a set

of

cases.

Then,

the

comparability

f

economic

indicators

and

military

ndicators,

as noted

above,

poses

some obstacles.

One solution

is

to

convert he

issue-specific

ndicators o a

common

scale,

with

appropriate ecognition

of

indicator

variance.

Another would

be to

identify

issues

according

o

the

key

charac-

teristics across

issue

types thought

to

influencenational

behavior

such

as

tangibi-

lity)

as noted

above. This

may

still

permit

interval

measurement and

allows

com-

parison

across different

ndicators.

Gamson

&

Modigliani

(1971)

use

headline size to

measure

public

awareness

and

salience

of

an

issue,

and

one could use

other measures

(with some cost though) based on public

opinion

polls

and

media

exposure

to

deter-



11/13

342

PaulF.

Diehl

mine salience.

One

problem,

however,

is

that

there

is an

implicitassumption

hat

the

different issues

inherently

share the same

salience

in

a

dispute.

Yet,

high

stakes

on

disputes

over

trading

rights

may

be less im-

portant

than

even

a

low

stakes

territorial

dispute.

Another

approach

may

be accom-

plished

by

differentforms

of

factor

analysis

(such

as

LISREL),

in order

to

define

the

various

dimensions

of

the

issues

involved

and assess their

importance.

The safest

approach

s also

the

one with

the most

limitations. Scholarscould devise

an ordinal

scale

that

signifies

he

salience

for

each actor in a

dispute.

With

appropriate

codingrulesandavailability f information,

it

is

possible

to

code each

dispute

with a

salience score

for

each

actor.

Such

an

approach

leads

to a

common scale

that

permits

easy

comparison

and

variation

within and

across different issue

types

and

there

is

no

a

prioriassumption

hat

all issues

are

equally important.

6.

Conclusion

In this

paper,

I

have tried to demonstrate

that the issues in a

dispute

are

important

elements

in

understanding

national

beha-

vior,

especially

decisions

to

use

military

force.

Major

data sets and the

dominant

conceptual approaches

n the

international

conflict research area

generally

ignore

issues. This is

largely

the result

of

subscrib-

ing closely

to the

realpolitik

framework,

which

dismisses

the

motivations

behind

specific

national actions.

In

addition,

data

availability

and

measurement

problems

make the incorporationof issues very diffi-

cult,

if not

impossible,

for

those

who are

secondary

users

of

data sets in

international

conflict.

Yet,

previous

studies

that have

used issues

to

predict

conflict

escalation

have

shown

promising

esults.

Making

the full

use

of issues in

inter-

national

relations

research

will

require

a

number of

changes.

First,

scholars

must

conceptualize

issues

as

one

component

among

many

in national

decisionsfor

war.

This does

not

necessarily

mean

the

abandonmentof the power politics model,

but

only

its modification

to include

what

states

are

fighting

over. More

challenging

and

time-consuming

s the

collection

of data

and

the

derivationof

operational

measures

for the

issues and

their

salience

in a

dispute.Therehasbeen tremendous

progress

over

the

past

three

decades

n

understandingwhy

states use

military

force.

Yet,

we

are

approaching

he

limits

of

current

conceptua-

lizations and

approaches.

One

possible way

to extend

previous

indings

s to look at

what

states are

fighting

or.

This

is

not

a

panacea

for

the

key

problems

in

internationalcon-

flict

research,

but

it

is

perhaps

an essential

ingredient

for

understanding

onflict

beha-

vior and

perhaps

other

forms of

inter-

national nteraction.

NOTES

1. Contrast this with the

definition

of issues

given

by

Mansbach &

Vasquez

(1981a, p.

59):

'contention

among

actors over

proposals

for

the

disposition

of

stakes

among

them.'

2. The new edition

of

the COW

dispute

data

set,

not

available

at

this

writing,

will

contain

a

coding

for the

site

of

the

dispute

and

perhaps

some indications

of

what the

dispute

was about.

3. For

a review of the

quantitative

literature

on

war,

see Midlarsky (1989). For a review of some non-

quantitative

approaches

as

well

as some

quantita-

tive,

see

Levy (1989a).

4. It

might

be

argued

that

the

expected

utility

measure

takes into

account the similarities of states' issue

preferences

by

reference

to

their

alliance

patterns.

Regardless,

the

expected

utility

approach

does

have

the

potential

to

incorporate

issues,

depending

on

the

question

addressed. See Bueno de

Mesquita

et al.

(1985).

5.

Differing

views on

the

importance

of

the issue

may

lead each

side

to

take

different actions. For

example,

a weaker state which sees

the stakes

as

high

may

be

willing

to risk

more and

accept

greater

costs than a less interested strong state, who might

be reluctant

as a result

to use its

superior

power.

For

a

discussion

of this

point,

see

George

et al.

(1971).

REFERENCES

Allison,

Graham,

1971.

Essence

of

Decision.

Boston,

MA:

Little,

Brown.

Brewer,

Thomas,

1973.

'Issue and

Context Variations

in

Foreign Policy',

Journal

of

Conflict

Resolution,

vol.

17,

no.

1, March,

pp.

89-114.

Bueno

de

Mesquita,

Bruce,

1981. The

War

Trap.

New

Haven,

CT:

Yale

University

Press.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce; David Newman & Alvin

Rabushka,

1985.

Forecasting

Political Events: The



12/13

What

Are

They

Fighting

For?

343

Future

of

Hong Kong.

New

Haven,

CT: Yale

Uni-

versity

Press.

Choucri,

Nazli &

Robert

North,

1975.Nations

n

Con-

flict.

San

Franciso,

CA: Freeman.

Deutsch,

Karl &

J.

David

Singer,

1964.

'Multipolar

Power Systemsand InternationalStability',World

Politics,

vol.

16,

no.

3,

April, pp.

390-406.

Diehl,

Paul,

forthcoming.

'The

Correlates

of

War

Project:

A

Bibliographic

Essay',

International

Studies Notes.

Diehl,

Paul

&

Gary

Goertz,

1991a.

'Entering

Inter-

national

Society:

Military

Conflict and

National

Independence,

1816-1980',

Comparative

Political

Studies,

vol.

23,

no.

4,

January,

pp.

497-518.

Diehl,

Paul &

Gary

Goertz,

1991b.

InterstateConflict

Over

Exchanges

of Homeland

Territory,

1816-

1980',

Political

Geography

Quarterly,

vol.

10,

no.

4,

October,

pp.

342-355.

Doran,

Charles

&

Wes

Parsons,

1980.

'War

and

the

Cycle of Relative Power', American Political Science

Review,

vol.

74,

no.

4,

December,

pp.

947-965.

Gamson,

William

&

Andre

Modigliani,

1971. Untan-

gling

the

Cold

War.

Boston,

MA:

Little,

Brown.

George,

Alexander;

David

Hall

&

William

Simons,

1971. The Limits

of

Coercive

Diplomacy.

Boston,

MA:

Little,

Brown.

Gilpin,

Robert,

1981. War

and

Change

in

World

Poli-

tics.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University

Press.

Gochman,

Charles

&

Russell

Leng,

1983.

'Realpolitik

and

the

Road to War:An

Analysis

of

Attributes

nd

Behavior',

International Studies

Quarterly,

vol.

27,

no.

1,

March,

pp.

97-120.

Gochman,

Charles

&

Zeev

Maoz,

1984. 'Militarized

Interstate Disputes, 1816-1976: Procedures,Pat-

terns,

and

Insights',

Journal

of Conflict

Resolution,

vol.

28,

no.

4,

December,

pp.

585-615.

Goertz,

Gary

& Paul

Diehl,

1990. Territorial

Changes

and

Recurring

Conflict',

pp.

57-72 in CharlesGoch-

man &

Alan

Sabrosky,

eds,

Prisoners

of

War?:

Nation-States in

the

Modern Era.

Lexington,

MA:

Lexington

Books.

Goertz,

Gary

&

Paul

Diehl,

1992. Territorial

hanges

and

International

Conflict.

London:

Routledge.

Holsti, Kalevi,

1991.

Peace

and

War:

Armed

Conflicts

and

International

Order 1648-1989.

Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversity

Press.

Janis,

Irving,

1982.

Groupthink.

nd

ed.

Boston,

MA:

Houghton-Mifflin.

Kaplan,

Morton,

1957.

System

and Process

in Inter-

national Politics. New

York,

NY:

Wiley.

Leng,

Russell &

J.

David

Singer,

1988. 'Militarized

Interstate Crises: The

BCOW

Typology

and

its

Applications',

International Studies

Quarterly,

vol.

32,

no.

2, June,

pp.

115-174.

Levy,

Jack,

1983a. War in

the

Modern Great Power

System.

Lexington,

KY:

University

of

Kentucky

Press.

Levy,

Jack,

1983b.

'Misperception

nd

the

Causes of

War',

World

Politics,

vol.

35,

no.

1, October,

pp.

76-

99.

Levy,

Jack,

1989a. 'The Causes

of War:A Review

of

Theoriesand Evidence',pp. 210-333 in PhilipTet-

lock,

Jo

Husbands,

Paul Stern& Charles

Tilly,

eds,

Behavior,

Society,

and

Nuclear

War. Vol.

I.

New

York,

NY:

Oxford

University

Press.

Levy,

Jack,

1989b. The

Diversionary

Theory

of

War:

A

Critique',pp.

259-288 in Manus

Midlarsky,

d.,

Handbook

of

War Studies.

Boston,

MA: Unwin

Hyman.

Luard,

Evan,

1968.

Conflict

and Peace in

the

Modern

International

System.

Boston,

MA:

Little Brown.

Mandel,

Robert,

1980. 'Roots of Modern

Interstate

Border

Disputes',

Journal

of

Conflict

Resolution,

vol.

24,

no.

3,

September,

pp.

427-454.

Mansbach,

Richard

&

John

Vasquez,

1981a.

In

Search

of

Theory:

A New

Paradigm

for

Global Politics.

New

York,

NY: Columbia

University

Press.

Mansbach,

Richard

&

John

Vasquez,

1981b. 'The

Effect

of Actor and Issue

Classifications

on

the

Analysis

of Global

Conflict-Cooperation',

ournal

of

Politics,

vol.

43,

no.

3,

August, pp.

861-874.

Maoz,

Zeev

&

Bruce

Russett,

1991.

'Alliance,

Conti-

guity, Wealth,and PoliticalStability: s the Lack of

Conflict

Among

Democracies Statistical

Artifact?',

International

Interactions,

vol.

17,

no.

3,

Spring, pp.

245-265.

McGinnis,

Michael,

1986. Issue

Linkage

and

the

Evol-

ution of International

Cooperation',

ournal

of

Con-

flict

Resolution,

vol.

30,

no.

1,

March,

pp.

141-170.

McGowan,

Patrick;

Harvey

Starr,

Gretchen

Hower,

RichardMerritt&

Dina

Zinnes,

1988.

'International

Data as a Natural

Resource',

International Interac-

tions,

vol.

14,

no.

2,

pp.

101-113.

Merritt,

Richard

&

DinaZinnes,

1988.

Data

Develop-

mentfor International

Research',

nternationalnter-

actions,

vol.

14,

no.

2,

pp.

95-100.

Midlarsky, Manus, ed., 1989. Handbook of War

Studies.

Boston,

MA:

Unwin

Hyman.

Morgan,

T.

Clifton,

1990. 'Issue

Linkages

in

Inter-

national Crisis

Bargaining',

American

Journal

of

Political

Science,

vol.

34,

no.

2,

May, pp.

311-333.

Morgenthau,

Hans,

1960.

Politics

Among

Nations.

3rd

ed. New

York,

NY:

Alfred

Knopf.

Morrow, James,

1986.

'A

Spatial

Model of

Inter-

national

Conflict',

American Political Science

Review,

vol.

80,

no.

4,

December,

pp.

1131-1150.

Most,

Benjamin

&

Harvey

Starr,

1989.

Inquiry,Logic,

and International

Politics.

Columbia,

SC:

University

of

South Carolina

Press.

O'Leary,

Michael,

1976.

The

Role of

Issues',

pp.

319-

325 in James Rosenau, ed., In Search of Global Pat-

terns.New

York,

NY:

Free Press.

O'Neill,

Barry,

1990.

'A

Survey

of

Game

Theory

Models on

Peace

and

War',

Occasional

Paper

Number9.

Toronto:York

Center for International

and

Strategic

Studies.

Organski,

A. F. K. &

Jacek

Kugler,

1980. The

War

Ledger.

Chicago,

IL:

University

f

Chicago

Press.

Pearson,

Frederic&

Robert Baumann.

1989. 'Inter-

national

Military

Intervention,1946-1988',

DDIR-

Update,

vol.

4,

no.

2,

January,pp.

7-9.

Randle,

Robert,

1987. Issues

in

the

History of

Inter-

national Relations. New

York,

NY:

Praeger.

Richardson, Lewis,

1960. Statistics

of

Deadly

Quarrels.

Pittsburgh,PA: BoxwoodPress.

Rosenau, James,

1967.

'Foreign Policy

as

an Issue



13/13

344 Paul

F.

Diehl

Area',

pp.

11-50 in James

Rosenau,

ed

What Are They Fighting For? The Importance of Issues in International Conflict Research

Documents

Transcript of What Are They Fighting For? The Importance of Issues in International Conflict Research