Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Caruso, Raul

Ed. by Böhmelt, Tobias / Bove, Vincenzo / Kibris, Arzu / Sekeris, Petros

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.39

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.225
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.322

Online
ISSN
1554-8597
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 21, Issue 4 (Dec 2015)

Issues

Volume 17 (2011)

Volume 4 (1996)

Volume 3 (1995)

Volume 2 (1994)

Volume 1 (1993)

Trade and Conflicts: Do Preferential Trade Agreements Matter?

Arslan Tariq Rana
  • Corresponding author
  • Laboratoire d’Economie d’Orléans (LEO) UMR 7322 – CNRS, Faculté de Droit, d’Economie et de Gestion Rue de Blois – BP 26739, 45067, Orléans Cedex 2, France
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-10-17 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2015-0029

Abstract

A long debate continues whether international trade institutions (specifically preferential trade agreements [PTAs]) affect security relations between states. Contradicting theories and empirical claims are put forward by realists and liberals. The former posit that the institutions are epiphenomenal and possess no power to constrain state behavior whereas the latter claim that the institutions are likely to promote cooperation by supplying forums for consultation, arbitration and adjudication, thus reducing the risk of war between states. This study identifies an important channel through which the legal dimension of trade agreements (hence dispute settlement mechanisms [DSMs] in PTAs) may have pacifying effects on the outbreaks of war. DSMs of PTAs do have strong implications for militarized interstate disputes (MIDs), although not directly, but through low-level of foreign policy disputes, such as economic sanctions. If economic sanctions are believed to escalate to violent conflict, PTA DSMs may reduce the probability of war by mitigating the escalation of economic sanctions. However, the level of legalism differs among DSMs in PTAs. The present study first confirms empirically that sanction disputes escalate to militarized disputes and further, addresses the selection issue by using bivariate probit model. I find a sizeable impact of medium level of legalism reducing the sanctions escalation into war whereas high level of legalism, in which the state sovereignty is limited, do reduce the probability of sanctions but have no impact on war probability. Further, the interstate political cooperation proves to be a strong determinant for highly legalistic PTAs but not in the case of medium level of legalism.

Keywords: international relations; trade agreements; dispute settlement mechanisms; war

References

  • Barbieri, K., Keshk, O.M.G., (2012), Correlates of War Project Trade Data Set Codebook, Version 3.0. Online: http://correlatesofwar.org.

  • Bearce, D.H., (2003), Grasping the Commercial Institutional Peace, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 347–370.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boehmer, C., Gartzke, E., Nordstrom, T., (2004), Do Intergovernmental Organizations Promote Peace?, World Politics, vol. 57, no. 01, pp. 1–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Capling, A., (2008), Preferential Trade Agreements as Instruments of Foreign Policy: An Australia–Japan Free Trade Agreement and its Implications for the Asia Pacific Region, The Pacific Review, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 27–43.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Caruso, R., (2003), The Impact of International Economic Sanctions on Trade: An Empirical Analysis, Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chase, C., Yanovich, A., Crawford, J.A., Ugaz, P., (2013), Mapping of Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Regional Trade Agreements-Innovative or Variations on a Theme?, WTO Staff Working Paper (ERSD-2013-07).Google Scholar

  • Dixon, W.J., (1994), Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict, American Political Science Review, vol. 88, no. 01, pp. 14–32.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Drezner, D.W., (2003), The Hidden Hand of Economic Coercion, International Organization, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 643–659.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Drury, A., Park, J., (2004), Mids, Economic Sanctions, and Trade: The Effect of Economic Coercion on Military Disputes, in Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

  • Duina, F., Morano-Foadi, S., (2011), Introduction: The Institutionalisation of Regional Trade Agreements Worldwide: New Dynamics and Future Scenarios, European Law Journal, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 561–567.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fearon, J.D., (1995), Rationalist Explanations for War, International Organization, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 379–414.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ghosn, F., Palmer, G., Bremer, S.A., (2004), The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description, Conflict Management and Peace Science, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 133–154.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hafner-Burton, E.M., Montgomery, A.H., (2008), Power or Plenty How Do International Trade Institutions Affect Economic Sanctions?, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 213–242.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haftel, Y.Z., (2013), Commerce and Institutions: Trade, Scope, and the Design of Regional Economic Organizations, The Review of International Organizations, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 389–414.Google Scholar

  • Helfer, L.R., Slaughter, A.M., (1997), Toward A Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, Yale Law Journal, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 273–391.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hicks, R., Kim, S.Y., (2012), Reciprocal Trade Agreements in Asia: Credible Commitment to Trade Liberalization or Paper Tigers?, Journal of East Asian Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

  • Jo, H., Namgung, H., (2012), Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Preferential Trade Agreements Democracy, Boilerplates, and the Multilateral Trade Regime, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1041–1068.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Lektzian, D.J., Sprecher, C.M., (2007), Sanctions, Signals, and Militarized Conflict, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 415–431.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lopez, G.A., Cortright, D., (1995), The Sanctions Era: An Alternative to Military Intervention, Fletcher F. World Affairs, vol. 19, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar

  • Mansfield, E.D., Pollins, B.M., eds., (2003), Economic Interdependence and International Conflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar

  • Mearsheimer, J.J., (1990), Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War, International Security, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 5–56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Morgan, T.C., Bapat, N.A., Kobayashi, Y., (2013), Threat and Imposition of Sanctions (TIES) Data 4.0 UsershManual Case Level Data.Google Scholar

  • Oneal, J.R., Russett, B., (1999), Assessing The Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 423–442.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Petrescu, I.M., (2011), Rethinking Economic Sanction Success: Sanctions as Deterrents, Paper Presented at European Economic Association & Econometric Society.Google Scholar

  • Raymond, G.A., (1994), Democracies, Disputes, and Third-Party Intermediaries, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 24–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Russett, B., Oneal, J.R., Davis, D.R., (1998), The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace: International Organizations and Militarized Disputes, 1950–85, International Organization, vol. 52, no. 03, pp. 441–467.Google Scholar

  • Schneider, A.K., (1999), Getting Along: The Evolution of Dispute Resolution Regimes in International Trade Organizations, Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 697–773.Google Scholar

  • Schweller, R.L., (2001), The Problem of International Order Revisited: A Review Essay, International Security, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 161–186.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Smith, J.M., (2000), The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts, International Organization, vol. 54, no. 01, pp. 137–180.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yarbrough, B.V., Yarbrough, R.M., (1987), Institutions for the Governance of Opportunism in International Trade, JL Econ. & Org., vol. 3, pp. 129–139.Google Scholar

  • Yarbrough, B.V., Yarbrough, R.M., (1997), Dispute Settlement in International Trade: Regionalism and Procedural Coordination, in The Poltical Economy of Regionalism, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Arslan Tariq Rana, Laboratoire d’Economie d’Orléans (LEO) UMR 7322 – CNRS, Faculté de Droit, d’Economie et de Gestion Rue de Blois – BP 26739, 45067, Orléans Cedex 2, France, E-mail:


Published Online: 2015-10-17

Published in Print: 2015-12-01


Citation Information: Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, ISSN (Online) 1554-8597, ISSN (Print) 1079-2457, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2015-0029.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in