Interstate War Battle dataset (1823–2003)
| Author | Eric Min |
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343320913305 |
| Subject Matter | Special Data Features |
Special Data Features
Interstate War Battle dataset (1823–2003)
Eric Min
Department of Political Science, University of California
Abstract
Extant scholarship on interstate war and conflict resolution predominantly utilizes formal models, case studies, and
statistical models with wars as the unit of analysis to assess the impact of battlefield activity on war duration
and termination. As such, longstanding views of war have not been tested systematically using intraconflict measures,
and deeper studies of war dynamics have also been hampered. I address these gaps by creating and introducing the
Interstate War Battle (IWB) dataset, which captures the outcomes and dates of 1,708 battles across 97 interstate wars
since 1823. This article describes the sources used to create these data, provides definitions, and presents descriptive
statistics for the basic battle data and several daily-level measures constructed from them. I then use the data to test
the implications of two major theoretical perspectives on conflict termination: the informational view, which
emphasizes convergence in beliefs through battlefield activity; and Zartman’s ripeness theory, which highlights
costly stalemates in fighting. I find suggestive evidence for informational views and little support for ripeness theory:
new battlefield outcomes promote negotiated settlements, while battlefield stagnation undermines them. The IWB
dataset has significant implications, highlights future research topics, and motivates a renewed research agenda on the
empirical study of conflict.
Keywords
battle, conflict, information, interstate war, ripeness theory, war
War is one of the most heavily analyzed aspects of inter-
national relations. Nevertheless, scholars have made nar-
row progress in quantitatively exploring intraconflict
activity or understanding how fighting on the battlefield
dynamically impacts the decision to either continue or
terminate hostilities.
Data limitations represent the clearest obstacle to this
research. Without precise within-war data, most IR lit-
erature linking fighting and bargaining has relied on
three sets of methodological approaches. The first
involves various rich historical case studies of individual
conflicts (Goemans, 2000; Reiter, 2009; Shirkey, 2009;
Weisiger, 2013). The second consists of formal models
that explore the strategic interaction between fighting
and bargaining (Filson & Werner, 2002; Leventog
˘lu
& Slantchev, 2007; Powell, 2004; Slantchev, 2003;
Smith, 1998; Smith & Stam, 2004; Wagner, 2000).
The third approach involves statistical studies that use
entire wars as the unit of analysis and thus rely on
time-invariant variables (Bennett & Stam, 1996;
Goemans, 2000; Slantchev, 2004; Weisiger, 2013).
Insights from these three streams generally paint war as
a rational if costly manner to resolve uncertainty about
relative power and interests. However, few resources
have allowed us to rigorously test these implications, or
to study intraconflict patterns, across multiple conflicts.
This article outlines and explores a new dataset fea-
turing the outcomes and dates of 1,708 battles across
97 interstate wars between 1823 and 2003. The Inter-
state War Battle dataset (IWB) is compiled and con-
verted from a variety of reference sources that seek to
qualitatively catalog a comprehensive list of battles
between states. The resulting information provides an
unprecedented opportunity to view the inner workings
of war.
As Table I indicates, the IWB dataset is not the first
to catalog battles from interstate conflicts. Some past
Corresponding author:
eric.min@ucla.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2021, Vol. 58(2) 294–303
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343320913305
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial