Regime Type and Bilateral Treaty Formalization

How does domestic regime type affect bilateral cooperation, and one of its most visible manifestations, bilateral treaties? This article explains how domestic political regime affects bilateral cooperation and, contrary to the expectations of some scholars, why autocracies should be expected to be more likely than democracies to enter into bilateral treaties. If the preferences of a pair of states are not identical, the sets of agreements that each party would consent to (win-sets) need to overlap for a bilateral treaty to be acceptable. Because additional domestic constraints reduce the size of a country’s win-set, autocracies should have broader win-sets than democracies. Therefore, autocratic dyads should be more likely to formalize bilateral treaties than other pairs of states. Based on an original data set, I present empirical evidence showing that pairs of autocracies are more likely than other pairs of states to enter into agreements formalizing bilateral cooperation

COW Inter-State War Data, 1816-1997 (v3.0)

War takes many forms in the contemporary era, including serious military conflicts between states (inter-state war), between states and non-state actors (extra-state war), and within states (intra-state war). This data set records such events over the 1816-1997 period.Version 3.0 of the Correlates of War Inter-State War data set identifies interstate wars and their participants between 1816 and 1997. In any papers or publications that utilize this data set, users are asked to give the version number and cite the article of record for the data set, as follows: Bibliography Entry: Sarkees, Meredith Reid (2000). "The Correlates of War Data on War: An Update to 1997," Conflict Management and Peace Science, 18/1: 123-144

Diplomatic Exchange , 1817-2005 (v2006.1)

The Diplomatic Exchange data set tracks diplomatic representation at the level of chargé d'affaires, minister, and ambassador between states from 1817-2005. The Correlates of War Diplomatic Exchange data set captures diplomatic representation at the level of chargé d'affaires, minister, and ambassador between members of the Correlates of War interstate system. The 2006 version of the data set includes information for the following years: 1817, 1824, 1827, 1832, 1836, 1840, every five years between 1844 and 1914, every five years between 1920 and 1940, and every five years between 1950 and 2005. In any papers or publications that utilize this data set, users are asked to give the version number and cite the article of record for the data set, as follows: Bibliography Entry: Bayer, Reşat. 2006. “Diplomat ic Exchange Data set, v2006.1.” Online: http://correlatesofwar.or

Territorial Change, 1816-2000 (v3.0)

Territory has played an important role in interstate conflict, and this data set records all peaceful and violent changes of territory from 1816-2000. The territorial change dataset is the result of the effort to identify and code all territorial changes involving at least one nation-state (as defined by the Correlates of War project) for the period 1816-2000. The 1816-2000 version of this data set (v3.0) is an update of the earlier territorial change data set that ended in 1996. In this version, 10 new cases have been added for 1997-2000 time period. In addition, some minor changes/corrections have been made to existing data points. Full details of these modifications are included in the update documentation. In any papers or publications that utilize this data set, users are asked to give the version number and cite t he article of record for the data set, as follows: Bibliography Entry: Tir, Jaroslav, Philip Schafer, Paul Diehl, and Gary Goertz. 1998. "Territorial Changes, 1816-1996: Procedures and Data." Conflict Management and Peace Science 16(1):89-97

Bilateral Trade

Trade is considered by many to have a pacifying effect on the relations of states. This collection of bilateral trade data begins in 1870 and covers most members of the interstate system

National Material Capabilities (v3.02)

Power is considered by many to be a central concept in explaining conflict, and six indicators—military expenditure, military personnel, energy consumption, iron and steel production, urban population, and total population—are included in this data set. It serves as the basis for the most widely used indicator of national capability, CINC (Composite Indicator of National Capability) and covers the period 1816-2001.The National Material Capabilites data set contains annual values for total population, urban population, iron and steel production, energy consumption, military personnel, and military expenditure of all state members, currently from 1816-2001. The widely-used Composite Index of National Capability (CINC) index is based on these six variables and included in the data set. In any papers or publications that utilize this data set, users are asked to give the version number and cite an article of record for the data set, as follows: Bibliography Entry: Singer, J. David, Stuart Bremer, and John Stuckey. (1972). "Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820-1965." in Bruce Russett (ed) Peace, War, and Numbers, Beverly Hills: Sage, 19-48

COW Intra-State War Data, 1816-1997 (v3.0)

War takes many forms in the contemporary era, including serious military conflicts between states (inter-state war), between states and non-state actors (extra-state war), and within states (intra-state war). Version 3.0 of the Correlates of War Intra-State War data set identifies intrastate wars and their participants between 1816 and 1997. In any papers or publications that utilize this data set, users are asked to give the version number and cite the article of record for the data set, as follows: Bibliography Entry: Sarkees, Meredith Reid (2000). "The Correlates of War Data on War: An Update to 1997," Conflict Management and Peace Science, 18/1: 123-144

Replication data for: State System Membership List, v2004.1

This data set contains the list of states in the international system as updated and distributed by the Correlates of War Project. These data sets identify states, their standard Correlates of War "country code" or state number (used throughout the Correlates of War project data sets), state abbreviations, and dates of membership as states and major powers in the internationaly system. Version 2004.1 extends the temporal domain of the collection to 2004. Users note: The order of variables in this file has changed from the 2002 version. The variables were incorrectly ordered in the 2002 version of this data set, and did not match the documentation (the first two variables were switched). In the 2004 version, variables are now in the correct order, and are identical between the "states" and "majors" data sets

Direct Contiguity, 1816-2006 (v3.1)

Geographic factors are known to play an important role in conflict. The Direct Contiguity data set registers the land and sea borders of all states since the Congress of Vienna, and covers 1816-2000. Version 3.0 of the Correlates of War Direct Contiguity data identifies all direct contiguity relationships between states in the international from 1816 through 2000. The classification system for contiguous dyads is comprised of five categories, one for land contiguity and four for water contiguity. Land contiguity is defined as the intersection of the homeland territory of the two states in the dyad, either through a land boundary or a river, such as the Rio Grande in the case of the US-Mexico border. Water contiguity is divided into four categories, based on distances of 12, 24, 150, and 400 miles. In any papers or publications that utilize this data set, users are asked to give the version number and cite the article of record for the data set, as follows: Correlates of War Project. Direct Contiguity Data, 1816-2006. Version 3.1. Users are asked to cite the current article of record for the data set, as follows: Bibliography Entry: Stinnett, Douglas M., Jaroslav Tir, Philip Schafer, Paul F. Diehl, and Charles Gochman. 2002. "The Correlates of War Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3." Conlict Mangagement and Peace Science 19(2):58-66