Abstract
This study examines two institutional explanations of the presence or absence of diversionary conflict. The two approaches emphasize different factors―external transparency and domestic constraints, respectively―in describing the relationship between domestic institutions and diversionary actions. Up to this point, they have not been compared theoretically and empirically in an explicit way. The present study contrasts their causal explanations and tests two competing sets of hypotheses, using cases derived from directed dyad-years from 1950 to 2000. The results show that either external transparency (strategic interaction) or internal constraints (domestic checks and balances) discourages diversionary conflict, and that mature democracies, domestically constrained and externally transparent, are least likely to initiate diversionary conflict.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
