So sánh phương pháp

	Territorial Conflict Analysis	Dyadic Conflict Analysis
Lĩnh vực	International Relations	International Relations
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	2001	1992
Người khởi xướng	Territorial-explanation-of-war program (John Vasquez; Paul Huth)	Stuart A. Bremer (and the Correlates of War dyadic tradition)
Loại	Observational analysis of disputed-issue type and war	Observational research design for interstate conflict
Công trình gốc	Vasquez, J., & Henehan, M. T. (2001). Territorial disputes and the probability of war, 1816–1992. Journal of Peace Research, 38(2), 123–138.	Bremer, S. A. (1992). Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309–341.
Tên gọi khác	Territorial Dispute Analysis, Territorial Explanation of War, Territory and Conflict Analysis, Border Dispute Analysis	Dyad-Year Analysis, Dyadic Design in Conflict Studies, Dangerous Dyads Analysis, Pairwise Interstate Conflict Analysis
Liên quan	3	3
Tóm tắt	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.	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.