Which third parties are more likely to manage interstate conflicts? Once they do, what kind of conflict management methods do they use? I argue that ethnic, language, and/or religious ties between a potential third party and disputant states can affect both the likelihood and the type of conflict management. If there are strong identity ties (ethnic, language, and/or religious) between the majority group in a potential third-party state and the majority group in one of the disputant states, both the likelihood of conflict management in general and the likelihood of economic conflict management in particular should increase. Equally stronger identity ties between a potential third party and both disputants should also increase the likelihood of conflict management in which third parties use verbal and diplomatic conflict management methods since they do not harm any of the disputants. Empirical findings based on a dataset covering the militarized interstate disputes between 1946 and 2011 support my theoretical expectations. These findings contribute to the literature by exploring the role of transborder identities—in addition to material factors such as alliance, trade partnership, or joint regime type—in management of interstate conflicts by third parties.

中文翻译：

---

跨境身份，偏见和第三方冲突管理

哪个第三方更可能处理州际冲突？一旦这样做，他们将使用哪种冲突管理方法？我认为潜在的第三方与争议国家之间的种族，语言和/或宗教联系会影响冲突管理的可能性和类型。如果潜在的第三方国家中的多数群体与其中一个有争议国家中的多数群体之间存在牢固的身份联系（种族，语言和/或宗教），那么一般而言，冲突管理的可能性和经济冲突管理尤其应增加。潜在的第三方与两个争议方之间同样强大的身份联系也应增加冲突管理的可能性，在这种冲突管理中，第三方使用口头和外交冲突管理方法，因为它们不会损害任何争议方。基于涵盖1946年至2011年间军事化州际争端的数据集的经验发现支持了我的理论期望。这些发现通过探索跨界身份（除了诸如联盟，贸易伙伴关系或联合政权类型等物质因素）在第三方管理州际冲突中的作用，为文献做出了贡献。