Does the democratic peace theory hold true for disputes over borders? This study examines two competing theories—democratic peace and territorial peace—and evaluates their accuracy with empirical data. It reveals that nearly all contiguous dyads resolve border issues before transitioning to joint democracies, while most non-contiguous pairs settle such conflicts prior to becoming democrats despite having more territory-related disputes elsewhere.
Data & Methods: Analyzes historical patterns of border settlements across multiple regions and time periods using comparative case study analysis.
Key Findings: Border disputes are typically resolved before countries become joint democracies, regardless of their initial political systems or the nature of neighboring states' regimes during conflict periods.
This finding aligns more closely with the territorial peace hypothesis than democratic peace theory. Crucially, it weakens a central argument of democratic peace advocates—that institutional factors in democratic states explain peaceful dispute resolution—by demonstrating that prior settlement may be driven by other political dynamics.
