1994 PGQ Paper

The idea that some geographic regions, known as shatterbelts, are more conflict-prone than others has appeared and resurfaced in geopolitical writings throughout the twentieth century. Yet much of that work has been tautological or impressionistic. We attempt to sort out the conceptual components of shatterbelts from their hypothesized consequences, and to test propositions about the effects of shatterbelts. The results indicate that shatterbelts are more likely than other regions to be the setting for interstate wars, but this is largely because they also generate more militarized disputes that can go to war, rather than because of any greater likelihood that those lesser conflicts will escalate. Internal conflicts were also more common in shatterbelts, although the effect was more modest than with interstate conflict. The portion of conflicts, especially interstate wars, that involve outside intervention is greater in shatterbelts. Yet, given that intervention occurs, conflicts in shatterbelts (with the exception of interstate wars) are not more likely to expand further or to include major powers as the intervening parties. Shatterbelt conflicts, both internal and external, were also generally considerably longer and bloodier than conflicts in other regions. Possible theoretical explanations and implications for future research are discussed.