Dyadic Hostility and the Ties That Bind: State-to-State versus State-to-System Security and Economic Relationships*

What types of ties lead states towards decreased dyadic conflict? There are two implicit points of debate in the literature: first, whether it is states’ ties to the system leader or instead their ties to each other that are important in shaping conflict propensities; and second, whether it is economic or security ties that are paramount. Power transition theory suggests that states’ ties to the international order are what determine dyadic peace (Organski, 1968; Organski & Kugler, 1980; Kugler & Lemke, 1996; Tammen et al., 2000). Recent research in this perspective has confirmed that two states with tight security ties to the system leader are less likely to go to war (Kim, 1989, 1991, 1996; Lemke & Reed, 1996, 2001). On the other hand, a large body of literature has focused on the importance of intra-dyadic, or state-to-state, relationships in reducing conflict. The interdependence and conflict literature, for example, suggests that states with strong bilateral trade ties will be less likely to engage in conflict (Polachek, 1980; Gasiorowski & Polachek, 1982; © 2004 Journal of Peace Research, vol. 41, no. 6, 2004, pp. 659–676 Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com DOI 10.1177/0022343304047431 ISSN 0022-3433