Militarized interstate dispute explained

Militarized interstate disputes (MIDs) are conflicts between states that do not involve a full-scale war. These include any conflicts in which one or more states threaten, display, or use force against one or more other states. They can vary in intensity from threats of force to actual combat short of war.^[1] A MID is composed of a sequence of related militarized incidents, all but the first being an outgrowth of or response to a previous militarized incident.^[2] An initiator of a war need not necessarily be the same as the initiator of a preceding MID, since a MID can be started by a show of force, whereas the initiator of a war begins the actual combat.^[3] Under this definition, over 2400 MIDs have been identified from 1816 to 2014 in the Correlates of War project.^[2]

For example, although the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States-led coalition would be considered a full-scale war, the bombings and disputes related to American, British, and (until 1996) French control of the Iraqi no-fly zone in the 1990s are described by Frank Wayman as a MID.^[4]

Research

Some of the findings from research on MIDs:

• Research using a continuous measure of democracy shows that the most democratic nations have few MIDs with one another. There is an ongoing debate regarding whether it is the most authoritarian or the intermediate regimes that have the most MIDs.^[5]
• When examining these MIDs in more detail, the disputes between democracies have on the average more hostility, but are less likely to involve third parties, hostility is less likely to be reciprocated, when reciprocated the response is usually proportional to the provocation, and the disputes are less likely to cause any loss of life.^[6]
• Enduring militarized competition between democratic states is rare. After both states have become democratic, there is a decreasing probability for MIDs within a year and this decreases almost to zero within five years.^[7]
• Democracies do sometimes attack nondemocracies. Many earlier papers found that democracies in general are as warlike as nondemocracies, but according to several recent papers democracies are overall slightly less involved in war, initiate wars and MIDs less frequently than nondemocracies, and tend more frequently to seek negotiated resolutions.^[8]
• Most MIDs by democracies since 1950 have involved four nations: the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and India.^[9]
• MIDs between Western democracies occur to a large degree over maritime territory as opposed to land territory.^{[10] [11] [12]}

The CoW Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) dataset

The Correlates of War (CoW) Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) dataset is the most extensive dataset on MIDs, and has been the basis of much of the published research on MIDs.^{[13] [14]}

Some studies have characterized the dataset as flawed. A 2012 study found that the dataset "often coded incorrectly" the outcomes of disputes where threats of force were issued, with implications for research on the democratic peace and audience costs.^[15] A 2017 study found that the coding in the dataset was deeply flawed with significant effects on the findings of studies that relied on the dataset:

After strictly applying MID coding rules, we recommend dropping 251 cases (or over 10% of the dataset), as either we were unable to find a militarized incident in the historical record or the dispute appeared elsewhere in the data. We found evidence linking 75 disputes to other cases, and we could not identify 19 cases in the historical record. Among the remaining disputes, we recommend major changes (changes in dispute year, fatality level, and participants) in 234 disputes and minor changes in 1,009 disputes. Though we identified several systematic problems with the original coding effort, we also find that these problems do not affect current understandings of what predicts the onset of interstate conflict. However, estimates in our replications of three recent studies of dispute escalation, dispute duration, and dispute reciprocation all witness substantial changes when using corrected data—to the point of reversing previous conclusions in some cases.

See also

• War
• Democratic peace theory

Further reading

• Gibler, Douglas. 2018. International Conflicts, 1816-2010: Militarized Interstate Dispute Narratives. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Jackson, Joshua; Owsiak, Andrew P.; Goertz, Gary; Diehl, Paul F. (2022). "Getting to the Root of the Issue(s): Expanding the Study of Issues in MIDs (the MID-Issue Dataset, Version 1.0)". Journal of Conflict Resolution
• Gibler, Douglas M; Miller, Steven V (2023). "The Militarized Interstate Events (MIE) dataset, 1816–2014". Conflict Management and Peace Science.

References

1. Daniel M. Jones, Stuart A. Bremer and J. David Singer. 1996. "Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns." Conflict Management and Peace Science 15(2): 163-213.
2. Palmer, Glenn, Roseanne W. McManus, Vito D’Orazio, Michael R. Kenwick, Mikaela Karstens, Chase Bloch, Nick Dietrich, Kayla Kahn, Kellan Ritter, Michael J. Soules. 2020. "The MID5 Dataset, 2011-2014: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description." Working paper. Available at https://correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/MIDs/mid-5-data-and-supporting-materials.zip/view.
3. Web site: Sarkess. Meredith. The COW Typology of War: Defining and Categorizing Wars (Version 4 of the Data). 2012-12-09. https://web.archive.org/web/20140918010545/http://www.correlatesofwar.org/COW2%20Data/WarData_NEW/COW%20Website%20-%20Typology%20of%20war.pdf. 2014-09-18. dead.
4. Wayman, Frank . Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992 . 2002 . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20050325211849/http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/wayman.html . March 25, 2005 .
5. Oneal, John R. . Bruce Russet . amp . Rule of Three, Let it Be? When More Really Is Better . 2004 . Revised version of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Peace Science Society. Beck, Nathaniel, Gary King, and Langche Zend . Theory and Evidence in International Conflict: A Response to de Marchi, Gelpi, and Grynaviski . American Political Science Review . 2004 . 98 . 379 - 389 . 2 . 10.1017/s0003055404001212. 16772841 .
6. Wayman, Frank . Incidence of Militarized Disputes Between Liberal States, 1816-1992 . 2002 . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans, La., Mar. 23-27, 2002 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20080405233409/http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/wayman.html . 2008-04-05 .
7. Hensel, Paul R., Gary Goertz, and Paul F. Diehl . The Democratice Peace and Rivalries . Journal of Politics . 2000 . 64 . 4 . 1173 - 88 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20050513003019/http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~phensel/Research/jop00.pdf . 2005-05-13 . 10.1111/0022-3816.00052 . 154641833 .
8. Müller, Harald . Jonas Wolff . amp . Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back . 2004a . Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference The Hague, September 9–11, 2004 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20060625034003/http://www.sgir.org/conference2004/papers/Mueller%20Wolff%20-%20Dyadic%20Democratic%20Peace%20Strikes%20Back.pdf . 2006-06-25 .
9. 10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800089 . Müller, Harald . The Antimony of Democratic Peace . International Politics . 2004b . 41 . 494 - 520 . 4 . 144940132 . Müller, Harald . Jonas Wolff . amp . Dyadic Democratic Peace Strikes Back . 2004a . Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th Pan-European International Relations Conference The Hague, September 9–11, 2004 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20060625034003/http://www.sgir.org/conference2004/papers/Mueller%20Wolff%20-%20Dyadic%20Democratic%20Peace%20Strikes%20Back.pdf . 2006-06-25 .
10. Mitchell. Sara MacLaughlin. Prins. Brandon C.. 1999-03-01. Beyond Territorial Contiguity: Issues at Stake in Democratic Militarized Interstate Disputes. International Studies Quarterly. en. 43. 1. 169–183. 10.1111/0020-8833.00115. 59135303. 1468-2478.
11. Hensel. Paul R.. Mitchell. Sara McLaughlin. Sowers. Thomas E.. Thyne. Clayton L.. 2008-02-01. Bones of Contention Comparing Territorial, Maritime, and River Issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution. en. 52. 1. 117–143. 10.1177/0022002707310425. 0022-0027. 10.1.1.490.7562. 3216746.
12. Steinsson. Sverrir. 2016-03-22. The Cod Wars: a re-analysis. European Security. 25. 2. 256–275. 10.1080/09662839.2016.1160376. 155242560. 0966-2839.
13. Gibler. Douglas M.. Miller. Steven V.. Little. Erin K.. 2016-12-01. An Analysis of the Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID) Dataset, 1816–2001. International Studies Quarterly. en. 60. 4. 719–730. 10.1093/isq/sqw045. 151567567. 0020-8833.
14. Palmer. Glenn. McManus. Roseanne W. D’Orazio. Vito. Kenwick. Michael R. Karstens. Mikaela. Bloch. Chase. Dietrich. Nick. Kahn. Kayla. Ritter. Kellan. Soules. Michael J. 2021-02-26. The MID5 Dataset, 2011–2014: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science. 39 . 4 . en. 470–482. 10.1177/0738894221995743. 242941688 . 0738-8942.
15. Downes. Alexander B.. Sechser. Todd S.. 2012. The Illusion of Democratic Credibility. International Organization. 66. 3. 457–489. 10.1017/S0020818312000161. 23279964. 154325372. 0020-8183.

External links

• A definition of MIDs