Regional and global intergovernmental organizations have grown both in number and scope, yet their role and effectiveness as conflict managers is not fully understood. Previous research efforts tend to categorize organizations solely by the scope of their membership, which obscures important sources of variation in institutional design at both the regional and global levels. International organizations will be more successful conflict managers if they are highly institutionalized, if they have members with homogeneous preferences, and if they have more established democratic members. These hypotheses are evaluated with data on territorial (1816-2001), maritime (1900-2001), and river (1900-2001) claims from the Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) project in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and the Middle East. Empirical analysis suggests that international organizations are more likely to help disputing parties reach an agreement if they have more democratic members, if they are highly institutionalized, and when they use binding management techniques.
Political Science international organizations regional global conflict management
Details
Title: Subtitle
IO Mediation of Interstate Conflicts: Moving Beyond the Global vs. Regional Dichotomy
This research was supported by National Science Foundation grants SES-0079421 and SES-0214447.
Comment
We thank Mark Crescenzi, Terry Chapman, and David Lake for useful comments on an earlier draft. Data and replication files can be accessed at: http://jcr.sagepub.com.
Language
English
Date copyrighted
2008
Date posted
01/06/2009
Academic Unit
Political Science; Public Policy Center (Archive); Center for Social Science Innovation
Record Identifier
9983557684902771
Metrics
1275 File views/ downloads
161 Record Views
Browse by research and academic units
Browse and search our researcher profiles
For display interface
IO Mediation of Interstate Conflicts: Moving Beyond the Global vs