Theory and Evidence on Geography and Conflict Geography and the Frequency of Militarized Conflict Tests of the Territoriality Perspective

1 Most research on the sources of militarized conflict between nation-states has emphasized characteristics of the states themselves or of the larger interstate system, with little emphasis on the geographic context of relations between states. Vasquez (1998), for example, finds that realist variables such as capabilities and alliances account for most variables and hypotheses used in quantitative research during the 1960s and early 1970s. The contents of this volume and such compilations as the Handbook of War Studies (Midlarsky, 1989) indicate a substantial broadening of the research agenda since the 1970s, although a number of chapters continue to address capabilities or alliances and many of the additional chapters address such non-geographic topics as democracy, norms, and the historical context (in the form of interstate rivalries). The current chapter considers empirical research on geography and militarized conflict, in order to understand the role of geography as a context or source for conflict. Diehl (1991) distinguishes between arguments treating geography as a "source of conflict," indicating that conflict occurs specifically because of geographic factors, and geography as a "facilitating condition for conflict." Vasquez (1995) distinguishes geographic factors by the nature of the factor in question, identifying three general theoretical perspectives. The territoriality perspective-consistent with Diehl's "geography as a source of conflict"-suggests that geography is important primarily because states fight over territorial issues. The other two perspectives-associated more closely with Diehl's notion of a "facilitating condition for conflict"-suggest that geography is important primarily because it influences the ease with which states can reach each other militarily (the proximity perspective) or the frequency with which they interact with each other (the interaction perspective). This chapter considers the theoretical arguments of these major explanations that have been suggested to link geography with interstate conflict processes. The empirical evidence on each explanation is examined, supplemented by several original analyses to help evaluate the explanations and resolve the empirical controversies among them. The chapter concludes by discussing some of the implications for current and future scholarly research on interstate conflict. As will be seen, the territoriality explanation of geography and conflict receives the strongest support, although there is important evidence that proximity affects interstate conflict as well and there have been few direct tests of the interactions approach. Territoriality A common approach to studying interstate conflict begin with a disagreement between two or more states over some type of contentious issue(s). Depending on how the states attempt …