Contested Territory and Rivalry Often Begin Together, Raising Risk of MIDs and War

Why This Question Matters

Karen A. Rasler and William R. Thompson ask how three interrelated processes—contested territory, strategic rivalry, and conflict escalation (militarized interstate disputes and war)—unfold over time. Understanding whether territory disputes precede disputes and rivalries, or whether they arise simultaneously, bears directly on theories of escalation and on strategies for crisis management between states.

What the Authors Assemble

Rasler and Thompson bring together independent, systematic information on territorial contestation, the onset and duration of strategic rivalries, and occurrences of MIDs and war. They then examine the temporal ordering of these processes and estimate a unified model to explain when and why disputes escalate.

How the Analysis Works

• The study compares alternative temporal sequences (for example, contested territory → MID → rivalry) to see which patterns commonly occur.
• A unified statistical model tests how combinations of factors predict MIDs and war over time, while controlling for other potential drivers such as mixed-regime dyads and major-power status.

Key Findings

• The expected sequence—contested territory leading to a militarized dispute and then to a rivalry—is uncommon. Rivalries and contested territory frequently originate at the same time rather than in a simple stepwise progression.
• The best single explanatory combination for heightened risk of MIDs and war is the triad of contested territory, geographic contiguity, and an existing strategic rivalry. This triadic configuration exerts a consistent and strong effect on escalation over time.
• These results hold even after accounting for regime mix and whether one or both states are major powers.

What This Means for Theory and Practice

The findings provide robust empirical support for theoretical frameworks like Vasquez's steps-to-war that emphasize specific sources and sequences of escalation: when states share borders, contest territory, and are embedded in strategic rivalries, the likelihood of militarized escalation rises. For policymakers, the results suggest that simultaneous emergence of rivalry and territorial claims—and their geographic proximity—are critical risk markers that deserve early attention in diplomacy and crisis prevention.

Where This Advances the Literature

By combining independently coded measures and testing temporal ordering alongside a unified model, Rasler and Thompson clarify the timing and interaction of core drivers of interstate violence, shifting attention from isolated factors to the configuration that most reliably predicts escalation.