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 Bove, Vincenzo / Kibris, Arzu / Sekeris, Petros

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 0.54

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.304
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.540

Online
ISSN
1554-8597
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 23, Issue 3

Issues

Volume 17 (2011)

Volume 4 (1996)

Volume 3 (1995)

Volume 2 (1994)

Volume 1 (1993)

International Adjudication and Public Opinion in Territorial Disputes: Evidence from a Survey Experiment Using Amazon Mechanical Turk

Florian Justwan
  • Corresponding author
  • University of Idaho, Department of Politics and Philosophy, 875 Perimeter Drive, MS 3165, Moscow, Idaho 83843, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Sarah K. Fisher
Published Online: 2017-08-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2017-0003

Abstract

This article explores the effects of international adjudication on individual-level attitudes in territorial disputes. In particular, we investigate the micro-foundations for the argument that international court rulings provide political cover for governments settling disputes through unpopular territorial concessions. In an online survey conducted for this project, 494 Indian respondents were confronted with a fictitious foreign policy scenario. A randomized experiment embedded in the survey provides four major findings. First, international adjudication makes citizens more willing to support concessions in border disputes. Second, international courts influence the perceived fairness of comprosmise solutions. Third, legal conflict management mediates the emotional fallout of territorial concessions. Finally, we do not find any evidence for the claim that international adjudication reduces individual-level concerns over commitment problems. By focusing on individual-level data, this article provides an important contribution to the literature on international conflict management.

Keywords: Territorial disputes; conflict management; public opinion; survey experiment; political cover

References

  • Albin, C. (2003). Negotiating international cooperation: Global public goods and fairness. Review of International Studies, 29(3), 365–385.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Allee, T. L. & Huth, P. (2006a). Legitimizing dispute settlement: International legal rulings as domestic political cover. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 219–234.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Allee, T. L. & Huth, P. (2006b). The pursuit of legal settlements to territorial disputes. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 23(4), 285–307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baghel, R. & Nüsser, M. (2015). Securing the heights: The vertical dimension of the Siachen conflict between India and Pakistan in the Eastern Karakoram. Political Geography, 48(1), 24–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bahree, M. (2009). Showdown on the subcontinent. World Policy Journal, 26(3), 41–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bandyopadhyaya, J. (2003). The making of India’s foreign policy: Determinants, institutions, processes, and personalities. New Delhi: Allied Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Basrur, R. M. (2008). South Asia’s cold war: Nuclear weapons and conflict in comparative perspective. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Beardsley, K. & Lo, N. (2014). Third-party conflict management and the willingness to make concessions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(2), 363–392.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bercovitch, J. & Houston, A. (2000). Why do they do it like this? An analysis of the factors influencing mediation behavior in international conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(2), 170–202.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A. & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bueno de Mesquita, B., Morrow, J. D., Siverson, R. M. & Smith, A. (2004). Testing novel implications from the selectorate theory of war. World Politics, 56(2), 363–388.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ganguly, S., Hellwig, T. & Thompson, W. R. (2017). The foreign policy attitudes of Indian elites: Variance, structure, and common denominators. Foreign Policy Analysis, 13(2), 416–438.Google Scholar

  • Gent, S. & Shannon, M. (2010). The effectiveness of international arbitration and adjudication: Getting into a bind. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 366–380.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gent, S. & Shannon, M. (2011a). Bias and the effectiveness of third-party conflict management mechanisms. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(2), 124–144.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gent, S. & Shannon, M. (2011b). Decision control and the pursuit of binding conflict management: Choosing the ties that bind. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(5), 1–25.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gibler, D. M., Hutchison, M. L. & Miller, S. V. (2012). Individual identity attachments and international conflict: The importance of territorial threat. Comparative Political Studies, 45(12), 1655–1683.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Global Times. (2012). Considered strategy needed in Diaoyu spat. Global Times online, . accessed August 20, 2016.Google Scholar

  • Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E. & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hensel, P. R., Mitchell, S. M., Sowers, T. E. & Thyne, C. L. (2008). Bones of contention. comparing territorial, maritime, and river issues. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(1), 117–143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Horton, J., Rand, D. G. & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 399–425.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hutchison, M. L. (2011). Territorial threat and the decline of political trust in Africa: A multilevel analysis. Polity, 43(4), 432–461.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Huth, P. K. & Allee, T. L. (2002). The democratic peace and territorial conflict in the twentieth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Huth, P., Croco, S. & Appel, B. (2011). Does international law promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes? Evidence from the study of territorial conflicts since 1945. American Political Science Review, 105(2), 415–436.Google Scholar

  • Johns, R. & Davies, G. A. (2012). Democratic peace or clash of civilizations? Target states and support for war in Britian and the United States. The Journal of Politics, 74(4), 1038–1052.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Justwan, F. (2017). Trusting publics: The impact of generalized social trust on the decision to pursue binding conflict management. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(3), 590–614.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kapstein, E. B. (2008). Fairness considerations in world politics: Lessons from international trade negotiations. Political Science Quarterly, 123(2), 229–245.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Karim, S. M. (2014). Litigating law of the sea disputes using UNCLOS dispute settlement system. Klien, N. (Ed.), Litigating international law disputes: Weighing the options (pp. 260–284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levy, J. S., McKoy, M. K., Poast, P. & Wallace, G. P. R. (2015). Backing out or backing in? Commitment and consistency in audience costs theory. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 988–1001.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mason, W. & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavioral Research, 44(1), 1–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Melin, M. M. & Grigorescu, A. (2014). Dispute resolution and escalation in a world of entangled territorial claims. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(6), 1085–1109.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Miller, S. V. (forthcoming). Individual-level expectations of executive authority under territorial threat. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0738894215600384CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mintz, A. & Geva, N. (1993). Why don’t democracies fight each other? An experimental study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(3), 484–503.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • NYT. (2016). China’s Defiance in the South China Sea. New York Times, . accessed August 17, 2016.Google Scholar

  • Paolacci, G., Chandler, J. & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.Google Scholar

  • Powell, E. J. (2015). Islamic law states and peaceful resolution of territorial disputes. International Organization, 69(4), 777–708.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Powell, E. J. & Wiegand, K. (2014). Strategic selection: Political and legal mechanisms of territorial dispute resolution. Journal of Peace Research, 51(3), 361–374.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Raghavan, V. R. (2002). Siachen: Conflict without end. New Delhi, New York: Viking.Google Scholar

  • Raymond, G. A. (1994). Democracies, disputes, and third-party intermediaries. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(1), 24–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E. & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300(5626), 1755–1758.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Senese, P. D. & Vasquez, J. A. (2005). Assessing the steps to war. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 607–633.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shannon, M. (2009). Preventing war and providing the peace? International organizations and the management of territorial disputes. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(2), 144–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Singh, N. (2012). How to tame your dragon: An evaluation of india’s foreign policy toward China. India Review, 11(3), 139–160.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tanaka, S. (2016). The microfoundations of territorial disputes: Evidence from opinion surveys in Japan. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 33(5), 516–538.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Times of India. (2015). Govt bows to Congress, tweaks Bangladesh land deal. Times of India online, . accessed March 29, 2017.Google Scholar

  • Tir, J. (2010). Territorial diversion: Diversionary theory of war and territorial conflict. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 413–425.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tomz, M. (2007). Domestic audience costs and international relations: An experimental approach. International Organization, 61(4), 821–840.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tomz, M. & Weeks, J. (2013). Public opinion and the democratic peace. American Political Science Review, 107(4), 849–865.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wallensteen, P. & Svensson, I. (2014). Talking peace: International mediation in armed conflicts. Journal of Peace Research, 51(2), 315–327.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wiegand, K. E. (2011). Enduring territorial disputes: Strategies of bargaining, coercive diplomacy, and settlement. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar

  • Wiegand, K. & Powell, E. J. (2011). Past experience, quest for the best forum, and peaceful attempts to resolve territorial disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(1), 33–59.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-08-08


Citation Information: Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, Volume 23, Issue 3, 20170003, ISSN (Online) 1554-8597, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2017-0003.

Export Citation

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in