ABSTRACT

Many dyads develop peaceful relationships, avoiding war for long, historical periods. Are such dyads common? How many exist, and why have they never fought? This study provides a territorial perspective on peaceful dyads, defined as those that never fight a war over a given historical period. It compares two explanations for why peaceful dyads exist: the territorial peace and the democratic peace. A series of hypotheses test the relative ability of these two theories to account for peaceful dyads. The tests employ three samples – all dyads, politically relevant dyads, and grievance dyads – from 1816–2001, with an emphasis on the Cold War and post-Cold War periods. Through our analyses, we produce three major findings. First, the absence of territorial conflict – but not democracy – predicts peaceful dyads. Second, the absence of territorial disagreements appears in the vast majority (i.e., 85–96%) of peaceful dyads. Finally, approximately, 93–98% of democratic dyads lack any territorial disagreements. This implies that democratic dyads are peaceful because they face different issues than non-democratic dyads – ones less likely to undermine the development of peaceful, dyadic relationships.

摘要

许多成对发展和平关系，避免长期的历史时期的战争。这种二元组常见吗？有多少存在，为什么他们从未战斗过？这项研究提供了关于和平二元组的领土视角，被定义为在特定历史时期从未打过战的二元组。它比较了为什么和平二元存在的两种解释：领土和平和民主和平。一系列假设检验了这两种理论解释和平二元组的相对能力。这些测试使用了 1816 年至 2001 年的三个样本——所有的二元组、政治相关的二元组和不满的二元组——重点放在冷战和冷战后时期。通过我们的分析，我们得出了三个主要发现。首先，没有领土冲突——但不是民主——预示着和平的二人组。第二，绝大多数（即 85-96%）的和平对偶都没有出现领土分歧。最后，大约 93% 到 98% 的民主对立没有任何领土分歧。这意味着民主的二元对立是和平的，因为他们面临与非民主的二元不同的问题——这些问题不太可能破坏和平、二元关系的发展。