My dissertation examines the determinants of interstate dispute dynamics. When making decisions, do state decision makers have an eye on the future as they perform cost-benefit analyses, or are they “blinded” by history? I claim that different disputes exhibit different types of dynamics. To the best of my knowledge, this claim has not been explicitly made before. I argue that the importance (or salience) of the issue being fought over has a significant influence on dynamics. Decisions regarding disputes over highly salient issues will be most affected by history, while decisions regarding less salient issues will be most affected by considerations about the future. I find empirical support for my argument using a unique methodological technique that can determine which conception of conflict dynamics is more helpful, and when. In doing so, I provide important insights into how we should think about militarized conflict, both interstate and intrastate
