เปรียบเทียบวิธี

	Enduring Rivalry Analysis	Dyadic Conflict Analysis
สาขาวิชา	International Relations	International Relations
ตระกูล	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
ปีกำเนิด	2000	1992
ผู้ริเริ่ม	Paul Diehl & Gary Goertz (and the rivalry research program)	Stuart A. Bremer (and the Correlates of War dyadic tradition)
ประเภท	Dyadic analysis treating recurring conflict as the unit	Observational research design for interstate conflict
แหล่งต้นตำรับ	Diehl, P. F., & Goertz, G. (2000). War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.	Bremer, S. A. (1992). Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309–341.
ชื่อเรียกอื่น	Interstate Rivalry Analysis, Rivalry Approach to Conflict, Strategic Rivalry Analysis, Enduring Rivalries	Dyad-Year Analysis, Dyadic Design in Conflict Studies, Dangerous Dyads Analysis, Pairwise Interstate Conflict Analysis
ที่เกี่ยวข้อง	3	3
สรุป	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.	Dyadic conflict analysis is the dominant research design in quantitative conflict studies: it treats the pair of states (the dyad), observed year by year, as the unit of analysis and models the probability that a pair experiences militarized conflict as a function of their joint and individual attributes. Stuart Bremer's 'Dangerous Dyads' (1992) is the canonical statement, identifying which conditions — contiguity, the absence of alliance, power parity, the absence of joint democracy, and others — make a pair of states war-prone. The design aligns conflict data with the relational theories that dominate the field.