Author's notes: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 12–15, 2012. I thank Paul F. Diehl, John A. Vasquez, Derrick V. Frazier, Jude Hays, Chad Clay, Toby Rider, and John Willingham for helpful feedback on earlier drafts.
Analytical Essays: Evaluation, Synthesis, Reflections
Conflict Management Trajectories in Militarized Interstate Disputes: A Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Foundations†
Article first published online: 20 JAN 2014
© 2014 International Studies Association
International Studies Review
Volume 16, Issue 1, pages 50–78, March 2014
How to Cite
2014) Conflict Management Trajectories in Militarized Interstate Disputes: A Conceptual Framework and Theoretical Foundations. International Studies Review, doi: 10.1111/misr.12098. (
- Issue published online: 20 MAR 2014
- Article first published online: 20 JAN 2014
When multiple third parties intervene diplomatically in the same dispute, are their interventions interdependent? Although theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that they are, most conflict management research fails to theorize about and model this interdependence directly. The current project breaks with this tradition by advancing the new concept of a conflict management trajectory—the idea that conflict management efforts evolve over the course of a conflict and successive efforts inform one another. After discussing the rationale for and theoretical foundations underlying trajectories, I construct these trajectories empirically, summarize and discuss some of their characteristics, and create a typology to describe and organize them. In the process, I demonstrate that trajectories possess properties that clearly differentiate them from isolated interventions (the alternative) and display numerous general patterns. Each of these, in turn, suggests that trajectories deserve greater study as we seek to integrate and expand our understanding of international conflict management.