Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: A critical debate in international relations theory centers on the relationship between territorial salience and interstate conflict. Although previous studies of territory find a positive relationship between contiguity and the probability of conflict, they do not fully spell out the causal mechanisms behind this relationship. Previous studies are limited in that they assume that territorial salience is equivalent or reducible to an aggregate value of assets. We argue that salience must be reconceptualized in a way that captures its subjective component. We further argue that a reconceptualization of border salience as a relative rather than an absolute concept better captures the territorial dispute process. We extend previous work on border salience and draw out two important implications. First, distinguishing the salience scores of contiguous states enables us to make a directional argument and differentiate between challenger and target. Second, a redefinition of salience as a time-dependent measure makes possible an across time study of how shifts in salience are related to dispute propensity.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In an era of increasingly credible international commitments to the inviolability of existing borders and markedly decreasing material and strategic returns to territorial conquest, the objective costs of engaging in territorial revisionism are, in many respects, at an all-time high. While the initial wartime acquisition of territory can be explained by any number of factors, the real puzzle is why some states remain resistant to withdrawal. Often facing threats of international isolation or even military intervention and active resistance to rule by preexisting populations, instrumentally rationalist explanations cannot readily account for instances of “foreign” occupation in the contemporary international environment. Examining the cases of Israel, Serbia, and Armenia, this paper asserts that where a territory is seen as being imbued with culturally-informed historical meanings, conflict is significantly more likely to be intractable. Claims of this nature assign meaning to territory neither dependent on nor perfectly substituted by “more conventional” concerns of security, economic growth, strategic political positioning, or regime survival. The value-laden nature of these spaces further contributes to the sense that they are integral to the identity of the state and nation making the prospect of withdrawal increasingly unlikely.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines the validity and robustness of a simple claim: that the deployment of military capabilities overseas provokes increased levels of non-state actor violence against the deploying state. I argue that terrorist tactics are employed by non-state actors in response to perceived violation of "home" territories by "foreign occupiers". A cross-national dataset (combining data on state military deployments and terrorist violence) is used to create a series of empirical models at the state level of analysis. These models allow me to test the claim that terrorists act territorially, targeting their violence against foreign state interests in a bid to coerce foreign occupying forces to vacate their home territories. The paper concludes with a discussion of the key policy implication: that deploying security generates negative externalities; that while bases and troops overseas may protect overseas interests from traditional/conventional threats, they may also provoke heightened levels of so-called new threats. If these new threats are likely to continue increasing it may prove necessary to rethink deployment strategies.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Territoriality and ethnicity are often separately blamed for causing conflict both between and within states. However, while neither territory (as an issue) nor ethnicity (as a characteristic) is sufficient to create conflict by itself, when ethnicity get

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The paper examines the relationship between domestic institutional arrangements and external policy. Several perspectives in the international relations literature hold that fragmented institutions have advantages in international negotiations. First, the