Scientific Study of International Conflict

Political Science 124M

126 Barrows, Tu & Th 11:00-12:30pm
Fall 2017

INSTRUCTORS:
Professor Michaela Mattes
746 Barrows
Tel.: 510-642-4654
Email: m.mattes@berkeley.edu
Office Hours: Th 12:30-2:00pm or by appointment.

Ben Bartlett, GSI

715 Barrows (GSI Lounge)
Email: bartlbe@berkeley.edu
Office Hours: Th 1:30-2:30pm or by appointment

COURSE DESCRIPTION:
The goal of this course is to explore the conditions that lead to the initiation, escalation, and
termination of international conflict as well as the factors that encourage peace between states.
Our focus will be on conflict between states, not conflict involving non-state entities, such as
civil war or terrorism. The course also does not focus on the description of particular historical
wars or policy analysis of current international conflicts but rather provides a broad theoretical
treatment of the causes of war and peace in the international system. We will take a scientific
approach to the study of international conflict, emphasizing rigorous theorizing and systematic
empirical analysis.

We start the semester by familiarizing ourselves with the principles of the scientific inquiry,
definitions of interstate war and militarized interstate disputes, and trends in their occurrence.
Then we examine various factors that scholars have identified as associated with conflict,
including deterrence failure, the distribution of power, arms races, alliances, territory and
resources, trade interdependence, and domestic politics. After developing a firm understanding
of the causes and correlates of the onset of interstate conflict, we move on to examine issues in
the conduct of war, war termination, and the aftermath of war.

Upon completion of this course, you should have developed a deep understanding of the basic
factors that exacerbate or mitigate international conflict and be able to apply your insights to past
and present international conflicts. You will have the opportunity to demonstrate these abilities
in your final project.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS:
You will be evaluated through your class and discussion section participation, discussion
statements, a midterm exam, a final quiz, and a research paper due at the end of the semester.

15% Class Participation:

Your participation grade for the class will be assessed based on your attendance of discussion
sections and the frequency and quality of your comments in section. In addition to being an

1
active participant in discussion sections, you should also participate in the lecture class itself.
There will be many opportunities for comments and discussions and if you share your insights
and ideas you will make this a more interesting and valuable experience for all of us. Good
discussions make for a good class.

We want everyone to feel encouraged to participate in class by asking questions, making

comments, and sharing opinions. If you are offended by what is said in class or if you generally
feel uncomfortable speaking, please come and see Ben or me.

15% Discussion Statements:

Throughout the semester, you will submit a total of FIVE discussion statements on the readings.
You may submit one additional discussion statement and we will drop your lowest grade. The
first discussion statement will have to be completed by the end of the 3rd week, the second will
have to be completed by the end of the 6th week, the third by the end of the 9th week, the fourth
by the end of the 12th week, and the fifth by the end of the 15th week. You may choose to
submit a discussion statement for any of the lectures within these five intervals. Your discussion
statement is due by 10am the day we cover the readings in class. For example, if you choose to
write on the readings for Thursday 9/7 your discussion statement is due at 10am that day. Late
discussion statements will not be accepted. You will submit your discussion statement by
through bCourses.

Discussion statements are graded. This is not just a check that you did the readings but an
assessment of how much you have thought about them and whether you have interesting things
to say about them. Discussion statements should be no longer than a few lines. (This paragraph
has an appropriate length!) Your goal is to demonstrate your understanding of the days readings
and your ability to think critically about the arguments and issues raised by the author(s). Rather
than a question about the meaning of a word or a blanket rejection of an argument, you should
try to come up with a way the authors argument can be applied to and help understand a real-
world development or event, insightful criticisms of the argument, suggestions for fruitful
extensions of the argument, additional ways to empirically test the claims, or ways this argument
links to other readings. There is some flexibility in how you construct your discussion
statements: you might focus your analysis on only one of the readings or engage all of the
readings assigned for that lecture. The most important requirement is that your discussion
statement be analytically interesting and insightful rather than simply an opinion. We want to
hear your independent analysis of the readings.

25% Midterm Exam:

The preliminary date of the midterm exam is Tuesday October 17. It will cover the material
discussed up to this point. I will not give make-up exams except in case of a documented medical
excuse or a verified emergency. You must contact me before the exam unless this is physically
impossible.

10% Final Quiz:

There will be a brief quiz that tests your knowledge and understanding of the class material that
we covered after the midterm exam. The scheduled date for the final quiz is during our last class
Thursday November 30.

2
35% Research Paper:
In this course, you will be exposed to scholarly research on the causes of war and peace between
states. While the focus of the class is on providing you with a theoretical background for
understanding interstate conflict, you should be able to utilize this knowledge to analyze real
historical conflicts. You will write a research paper on an interstate conflict that interests you. In
your paper, you will analyze this particular interstate conflict using the theoretical concepts you
have learned in class or other theoretical approaches that you might find applicable based on
your research about the conflict. The paper should be no more than 12 pages (double-spaced,
typed, 12-point font, including bibliography). Further details concerning this assignment will be
provided later in the semester.

The due date of the paper is the first day of the exam period, Monday December 11. Late papers
will be penalized 1/2 letter grade (5%) for each day including weekends and holidays.

REQUIRED READINGS:
Readings need to be completed before class. There is only one book you will need to purchase
for class:

Russett, Bruce and John R. Oneal. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy,

Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: Norton.

The remaining readings are articles from International Relations journals or book chapters. These
readings are available through bCourses.

READING AND DISCUSSION SCHEDULE

Introduction
Week 1: Introduction
Thu. 8/24: Introduction to Course
*Read syllabus thoroughly

Week 2: The Scientific Study of Conflict

Tue. 8/29: Why study conflict scientifically?
*Frieden, Jeffrey A. and David Lake. 2005. International Relations as a Social
Science: Rigor and Relevance. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 600: 136-156.
*The Epidemiology of War in Russett and Oneal, pp.82-85.
Thu. 8/31: Conceptualizing War
*Vasquez, John. 2009. Conceptualizing War (chapter 1). In his The War Puzzle
Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.14-51.
*Jones, Daniel M., 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.

Week 3: Trends of International Conflict

Tue. 9/5: The Decline of Traditional Interstate Conflict
*Gleditsch, Nils Petter (ed.). 2013. The Forum: The Decline of War.
International Studies Review 15: 396-419.
3
 *Fazal, Tanisha M. 2014. Dead Wrong? Battle Deaths, Military Medicine, and
Exaggerated Reports of Wars Demise. International Security 39/1: 95-125.

Thu. 9/7: New Forms of Interstate Conflict

*Gartzke, Erik. 2013. The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back
Down to Earth. International Security 38/2: 41-73.
*Horowitz, Michael C., Sarah E. Kreps, and Matthew Fuhrmann. 2016.
Separating Fact from Fiction in the Debate over Drone Proliferation.
International Security 41/2: 7-42.

[Note: Your first discussion statement needs to be completed at the latest for the Thu 9/7 class.]

Week 4: Approaches to the Study of War

Tue. 9/12: Psychological Approaches
*Stein, Janice Gross. 2002. Psychological Explanations of International
Conflict. In Carlsnaer et al. (eds.) 2002 Handbook of International Relations.
*Duelfer, Charles A. and Stephen Benedict Dyson. 2011. Chronic Misperception
and International Conflict. The U.S.-Iraq Experience. International Security
36/1: 73-100.
Thu. 9/14: Rational Choice Approaches
*Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and James D. Morrow. 1999. Sorting through the
Wealth of Notions. International Security 24/2: 56-73.

Week 5: Bargaining Theory of War

Tue. 9/19: Rationalist Explanations of War
*Fearon, James. 1995. Rationalist Explanations for War. International
Organization 49/3: 379-414.
Thu. 9/21: Bargaining Theory
*Lake, David. 2010/2011. Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory. International
Security 35/3: 7-52.

Correlates of Conflict

Week 6: Power
Tue. 9/26: Balance of Power
*Blainey, Geoffrey. 1988. The Abacus of Power. In his The Causes of War. 3rd
edition. New York: The Free Press, pp.108-124.
*Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, pp.116-128.
Thu. 9/28: Power Transition
*Tammen, Ronald L. and Jacek Kugler. 2006. Power Transition and China-U.S.
Conflicts. Chinese Journal of International Politics 1: 35-55.
*Lim, Yves-Heng. 2015. How (Dis)Satisfied is China? A power transition theory
perspective. Journal of Contemporary China 24(92): 280-297.

[Note: Your second discussion statement needs to be completed at the latest for the Thu 9/28
class.]

4
Week 7: Deterrence, Arms Races, and Nuclear Weapons
Tue. 10/3: Deterrence and Signaling
*Huth, Paul K. 1988. Extended Deterrence and the Outbreak of War. American
Political Science Review 82/2: 423-433.
*Fearon, James D. 1997. Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus
Sinking Costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41/1: 68-90.

Tue. 10/5: Arms Races & Nuclear Weapons

*Rauchhaus, Robert. 2009. Evaluating the Nuclear Peace Hypothesis: A
Quantitative Approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution 53/2: 258-277.
*Horowitz, Michael. 2009. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons and International
Conflict: Does Experience Matter? Journal of Conflict Resolution 53: 234-257

Week 8: Alliances and Issues

Tue. 10/10: Alliances
*Leeds, Brett Ashley and Michaela Mattes. 2007. Alliance Politics During the
Cold War: Aberration, New World Order, or Continuation of History? Conflict
Management and Peace Science 24: 183-199.
*Johnson, Jesse and Brett Ashley Leeds. 2011. Defense Pacts: A Prescription for
Peace? Foreign Policy Analysis 7: 45-65.
Thu.10/12: What States Fight Over
*Vasquez, John R. 2009. Territorial Contiguity as a Source of Conflict Leading
to War (chapter 4). In his The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp.135-166.
*Colgan, Jeff D. 2010. Oil and Revolutionary Governments: Fuel for Conflict.
International Organization 64/4:661694.

Week 9: The Liberal Peace

Tue. 10/17: Midterm Exam

Thu. 10/19: Trade and Conflict

*Russett & Oneal, chapter 4.
* McDonald, Patrick J. 2007. The Purse Strings of Peace. American Journal of
Political Science 51: 569-582.

[Note: Your third discussion statement needs to be completed at the latest for the Thu 10/19
class.]

Week 10: The Democratic Peace

Tue. 10/24: Democracy & Conflict
*Russett and Oneal, chapters 2 & 3.
Thu. 10/26: Critics of the Democratic Peace
*Goldsmith, Arthur A. 2008. Making the World Safe for Partial Democracy:
Questioning the Premises of Democracy Promotion. International Security 33/2:
120-147.
*Stein, Rachel M. 2015. War and Revenge: Explaining Conflict Initiation by
Democracies. American Political Science Review 109(3): 556-573.

5
Week 11: The Autocratic Peace and the Clash of Civilizations
Tue. 10/31: Autocracies and War
*Weeks, Jessica L. 2012. Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and
the Initiation of International Conflict. American Political Science Review 106/2:
326-347.
*Weiss, Jessica Chen. 2013. Authoritarian Signaling, Mass Audiences, and
Nationalist Protest in China. International Organization 67: 1-35.
Thu. 11/2: No Class

Week 12: Leaders Calculus of War

Tue. 11/7: Diversionary Theory
*Oakes, Amy. 2006. Diversionary War and Argentinas Invasion of the Falkland
Islands. Security Studies 15/3: 431-463.
Thu. 11/9: Leaders and Conflict
*Chiozza, Giacomo and H.E. Goemans. 2004. International Conflict and the
Tenure of Leaders: Is War Still Ex Post Efficient? American Journal of Political
Science 48(3): 604-619.
*Croco, Sarah E. 2011. The Deciders Dilemma: Leader Culpability, War
Outcomes, and Domestic Punishment. American Political Science Review 105/3:
457-477.

[Note: Your fourth discussion statement needs to be completed at the latest for the Thu 11/9
class.]

Conduct and Termination of War

Week 13: The Conduct and Termination of War

Tue. 11/14: The Conduct of War
*Downes, Alexander B. 2006. Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: The Cause
of Civilian Victimization in War. International Security 30/4: 152-195.
*Morrow, James D. 2007. When Do States Follow the Laws of War?
International Organization 101/3: 559-572.
Thu. 11/16: Victory and Defeat
*Reiter, Dan and Allan C. Stam III. 1998. Democracy, War Initiation, and
Victory. American Political Science Review 92/2: 377-389.
*Arreguin-Toft, Ivan. 2001. How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric
Conflict. International Security 26/1: 93-128.

Week 14: After War I

Tue. 11/23: Durability of Peace
*Werner, Suzanne. 1999. The Precarious Nature of Peace: Resolving the Issues,
Enforcing the Settlement, and Renegotiating the Terms. American Journal of
Political Science, 43/3: 912-934.
*Nigel Lo, Barry Hashimoto, and Dan Reiter. 2008. Ensuring Peace: Foreign
Imposed Regime Change and Postwar Peace Duration, 1914-2001 International
Organization 62: 717-736.
Th. 11/24: Happy Thanksgiving!

6
Week 15: After War II
Tue. 11/28: Long-Term Consequences of Conflict
*Sambanis, Nicholas, Stergios Skaperdas, and Willian C. Wohlforth 2015.
Nation-Building Through War. American Political Science Review 109(2): 279-

Thu. 11/30: Final Quiz

[Note: Your fifth discussion statement needs to be completed at the latest for the Tue 11/28
class.]