Sammenlign metoder
Gjennomgå de valgte metodene side om side; rader som avviker, er uthevet.
| Territorial Conflict Analysis× | Enduring Rivalry Analysis× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fagfelt | International Relations | International Relations |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Opprinnelsesår≠ | 2001 | 2000 |
| Opphavsperson≠ | Territorial-explanation-of-war program (John Vasquez; Paul Huth) | Paul Diehl & Gary Goertz (and the rivalry research program) |
| Type≠ | Observational analysis of disputed-issue type and war | Dyadic analysis treating recurring conflict as the unit |
| Opprinnelig kilde≠ | Vasquez, J., & Henehan, M. T. (2001). Territorial disputes and the probability of war, 1816–1992. Journal of Peace Research, 38(2), 123–138. DOI ↗ | Diehl, P. F., & Goertz, G. (2000). War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. link ↗ |
| Alias | Territorial Dispute Analysis, Territorial Explanation of War, Territory and Conflict Analysis, Border Dispute Analysis | Interstate Rivalry Analysis, Rivalry Approach to Conflict, Strategic Rivalry Analysis, Enduring Rivalries |
| Relaterte | 3 | 3 |
| Sammendrag≠ | Territorial conflict analysis tests the proposition — central to the 'territorial explanation of war' — that what states fight over matters, and that disputes over territory are especially war-prone. Vasquez and Henehan (2001) operationalize this by coding disputes for the issue at stake (territory, policy, regime) and comparing how often each type escalates to war. The consistent finding that territorial disputes are more likely to lead to war than other kinds reframes the study of conflict around the contested issue rather than only the attributes of the disputants. | Enduring rivalry analysis studies the long-running, recurring antagonisms between particular pairs of states — India and Pakistan, the United States and the Soviet Union, Israel and its neighbors — as a distinct unit of analysis. Pioneered by Diehl and Goertz in War and Peace in International Rivalry (2000), it identifies rivalries from patterns of repeated militarized disputes, classifies their intensity, and analyzes their origins, dynamics, and termination. The approach argues that conflict is concentrated in a small number of rivalries and that understanding these histories explains much of interstate war. |
| ScholarGateDatasett ↗ |
|
|