| Recurrent conflict between states accounts for much of the devastation that is seen in the international system. Some pairs of countries have witnessed one war after another while other states have been able to move away from this cycle of violence. What accounts for these differences? This dissertation examines relations between former belligerents in order to better understand what drives some countries towards higher levels of cooperation while others stagnate or experience more militarized interstate disputes, including wars. Broadly, I argue that we need to consider both the past, in the form of the repercussions of the last war, and more current day events that decision-makers can be expected to face. Consequently, I identify several factors to consider ranging from the level of democracy in a dyad to the amount of casualties in the last war. However, studying former adversaries without taking into consideration their current level of relations would be misleading as it would be devoid of context. I argue that in order to deal with questions relating to post-war relations, it is necessary to consider peace as more than just the absence of violence and to think instead of multiple levels of peace. I construct a dataset which captures peace at three different levels, ranging from frozen relations to much warmer relations, for all former interstate war adversaries since 1816. This enables me to consider the influence of each factor at each level both for reaching a higher level of peace as well as experiencing more violence. I empirically test the hypotheses that emerge from the juxtaposition of these factors at the various levels using duration analysis. These statistical tests show that considering the context does make a significant difference in both what matters at which level and how it matters. Thus, for example regarding the role of democracy in international conflict, I find that democracy has a positive influence at higher levels of peace but not at the lowest levels. In addition, the tests also show that the factors that increase the chances of reaching peace can also increase the chances of violence which suggests that considering peace as the opposite of violence can be misleading. Following the statistical estimations, I also conduct case studies of relations between Russia and Turkey as well as between Mexico and United States. These two studies of major power-minor power dyads suggest the important role of external security concerns. Thus, this dissertation underscores the importance of studying interstate peace at the same time as demonstrating the prospects for reconciliation and recurrent conflict. |
