Replication Data for: The Cart and the Horse Redux: The Timing of Border Settlement and Joint Democracy

Do democratic dyads handle their disputes more peacefully than non-democratic dyads, or have they cleared the most contentious issues (i.e., unsettled borders) off their foreign policy agenda before becoming democratic? In this study, we compare the conflicting answers of the democratic peace and the territorial peace and examine the empirical record to see which is more accurate. We find that almost all contiguous dyads settle their borders before they become joint democracies. Furthermore, the majority of non-contiguous dyad members also settle their borders with all neighboring states before their non-contiguous dyad becomes jointly democratic. Such findings are consistent with the theoretical expectations of the territorial peace, rather than the democratic peace. They also weaken a core argument of the democratic peace, for our analysis finds that one reason democratic dyads may handle their disputes more peacefully than non-democratic dyads is not because of their institutions or norms, but rather because they have dispensed with the disputes most likely to involve the use of military force prior to becoming democratic.

民主双边体（democratic dyads）是否比非民主双边体更和平地处理争端？抑或是它们在成为民主国家之前，就已经将最具争议的议题（即未划定的边界）从外交政策议程中移除？本研究对比了民主和平论（democratic peace）与领土和平论（territorial peace）的对立观点，并通过检验实证记录来判断哪种理论更为准确。我们发现，几乎所有接壤双边体在成为联合民主国家之前，都已划定了彼此的边界。此外，多数非接壤双边体的成员国，在其双边体成为联合民主国家之前，也已与所有邻国划定了边界。上述发现与领土和平论的理论预期相符，而非民主和平论。这些发现同时削弱了民主和平论的核心论点：我们的分析显示，民主双边体之所以比非民主双边体更和平地处理争端，并非源于其制度或规范，而是因为它们在成为民主国家之前，就已经解决了最有可能诉诸武力的争端。