There are more than two sides to the story: Differences among autocracies that make a difference

This research focuses on militarized interstate conflict between democratic and non-democratic states (mixed regime disputes). It is based in part on a categorical indicator of regime type that is more comprehensive than the dichotomous indicator currently used in most research. My measure distinguishes among the different types of democratic and non-democratic regimes found in the international system between 1816 and 2001. I then use my new measure in conjunction with the existing Correlates of War Militarized Interstate Dispute data to analyze the conflict propensity of different types of regimes.; There are differences in both the propensity to initiate disputes and the propensity to escalate disputes among the different types of non-democratic regimes. Additionally, I find that liberal democracies are far more likely to be the target of disputes than to initiate disputes; however, liberal democracies are less likely to be targeted for disputes that escalate to war even when controlling for factors such as relative capability. Illiberal democracies are the most prone to initiate disputes with liberal democracies, suggesting that democratization needs to be seen through to consolidation.; There are also differences in the escalation rates of disputes over issues such as territory and policy among the different types of regimes. Finally, I find no evidence of an autocratic peace at either the initiation or the escalation phase of conflict despite operationalizing joint autocracy several different ways.