| Summary/Abstract |
What explains the attempts of different regime types, particularly different types of authoritarian regimes, to resolve international disputes peacefully, especially through legally binding methods? This study argues that the institutional structure of different types of authoritarian regimes—mainly the size of the winning coalition—influences the probability of resolution attempts. Regimes that have larger winning coalitions are more likely to seek peaceful dispute resolution because they can provide public goods that result from territorial concessions in dispute settlement. Likewise, regimes that are better able to promise public goods are expected to be more likely to do so through institutionalized, binding means in order to avoid domestic punishment. Analyzing two different datasets of authoritarian regime types, combined with data on territorial disputes from 1946–2007, the study finds that single-party regimes are generally more likely than other types of authoritarian regimes to pursue peaceful dispute resolution, specifically legally binding resolution methods.
|