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

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

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

Alliances (v3.03)

Alliances have been credited with preventing wars and provoking wars, and they have been important instruments of statecraft for centuries. This data set records all formal alliances among states between 1816 and 2000, including mutual defense pacts, non-aggression treaties, and ententes. The Correlates of War Formal Alliance data set seeks to identify each formal alliance between at least two states that fall into the classes of defense pact, neutrality or non-aggression treaty, or entente agreement. A defense pact (Type I) is the highest level of military commitment, requiring alliance members to come to each other’s aid militarily if attacked by a third party. As the labels imply, neutrality and non-aggression pacts (Type II) pledge signatories to either remain neutral in case of conflict or to not use or otherwise support the use of force against the other alliance members. Finally, ententes (Type III) provide for the least commitment and obligate members to consult in times of crisis or armed attack. Each alliance classifies the highest level of military support that an alliance member pledges to another alliance member. The data set provides the type, members, and appropriate dates of activity of each identified alliance. Version 3 of the alliance data sets updates the collection to include the years 1816-2000. In addition to extending to 2000, changes were made to the prior data set, both in the inclusion of additional alliances and the exclusion of some old alliances. Users of the data are urged to familiarize themselves with the basic coding procedures employed in the generation of the data. Distributed data include both the list of alliances and a dyadic conversion allowing easy incorporation into dyad-year analyses. 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: Gibler, Douglas M., and Meredith Sarkees. Forthcoming. "Measuring Alliances: the Correlates of War Formal Interstate Alliance Data set, 1816-2000." Journal of Peace Research. The original alliance data set was assembled in the 1960s under the auspices of the COW project and was initially discussed in: Singer, J. David, and Melvin Small. 1966. "Formal Alliances, 1815-1939." Journal of Peace Research 3:1-31