Triangles, Major Powers, and Rivalry Duration

Abstract

Why do some interstate rivalries last longer than others? Most rivalry literature focuses on the dyadic interactions within rivalries over time (temporal interdependence), but a considerable number of rivalries are connected to other rivalries (spatial interdependence). For instance, if there is a third country connected to two rival countries, this third party can be their common enemy (the enemy of my enemy is my enemy), common friend (the friend of my enemy is my friend), or one’s friend as well as the other’s enemy (the friend of my enemy is my enemy). Depending on the dynamics with the third country, the duration of the focal rivalry can vary. This paper attempts to examine the interdependence among rivalries by focusing on triangular relationships as well as power dynamics within them. I argue that rivalries embedded in balanced triangles are more likely to maintain while ones in imbalanced triangles are more likely to terminate. Additionally, in terms of the power dynamics, the third party’s power status (major v. non-major power) can affect rivalry termination. To test triangle hypotheses, the Peace data (Goertz et al. 2016) is employed in this paper. Analyses of rivalry duration show that rivalries are more likely to terminate when they have a common friend and particularly, the friend is a major power.