Non-Democratic Peace in South America

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part I. Theoretical Framework

Deterrence: Success and Failure

Third Party Intervention and War Prevention

Working Hypotheses

Part II. The Beagle Channel Crisis (Argentina vs. Chile 1977–1978)

Origins

Actors: The Military in Power

Claims

Onset

Escalation

De-escalation

Why Did the Crisis Not Escalate to War?

Part III. The Cenepa Crisis (Ecuador vs. Peru 1994–1995)

Origins

Actors: Democracy vs. Democracy?

Claims

Onset

Escalation

De-escalation

Why did the Crisis Escalate to War?

Part IV. Did Regime Type Influence the Crises’ Outcomes?

Regime Type and War

Regime Type, Deterrence and Third Party Intervention

Conclusions

Objectives and Research Themes

This study aims to explain why the Beagle Channel Crisis (1977–1978) was contained despite the militarized nature of both regimes, while the Cenepa Crisis (1994–1995) escalated to an intensive war between two democracies. The central research question investigates whether deterrence strategy alone is sufficient to prevent war or if the interaction between deterrence and third-party intervention is required to manage escalatory processes effectively.

• The effectiveness of deterrence strategies in different political contexts.
• The role of third-party mediation in preventing conflict escalation.
• The impact of regime type (military dictatorships vs. democracies) on crisis outcomes.
• The influence of domestic political constraints and audience costs on crisis management.
• A structured comparison of territorial disputes in South America.

Excerpt from the Book

Summary of Chapters

Introduction: Summarizes the historical prevalence of territorial disputes in Latin America and defines the study's focus on the Beagle Channel and Cenepa crises.

Part I. Theoretical Framework: Discusses the evolution of deterrence theory, the limitations of military capability alone, and the necessity of incorporating third-party mediation.

Part II. The Beagle Channel Crisis (Argentina vs. Chile 1977–1978): Details the military regimes' interactions and explains how credible threats and subsequent papal mediation successfully avoided war.

Part III. The Cenepa Crisis (Ecuador vs. Peru 1994–1995): Analyzes the escalation between two democracies, arguing that failed deterrence and a lack of timely third-party intervention contributed to the outbreak of war.

Part IV. Did Regime Type Influence the Crises’ Outcomes?: Investigates the democratic peace theory versus the role of domestic populist leadership and military autonomy in crisis decision-making.

Conclusions: Reasserts that while deterrence and mediation are essential, domestic conditions and the timing of third-party involvement are crucial variables that determine whether a crisis escalates to war.

Keywords

Deterrence, Third Party Intervention, Mediation, Crisis Escalation, Beagle Channel Crisis, Cenepa Crisis, Territorial Disputes, South America, Democracy, Military Dictatorship, War Prevention, Expected-Utility Theory, Regime Type, International Relations, Conflict Resolution.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the fundamental focus of this research?

The research focuses on why two specific South American territorial crises led to different outcomes: the Beagle Channel crisis was resolved peacefully, while the Cenepa crisis resulted in war.

What are the central themes of the work?

The core themes include the effectiveness of deterrence strategies, the impact of third-party mediation, and the influence of domestic politics on international conflict resolution.

What is the primary objective of this study?

The goal is to determine if deterrence alone is sufficient to prevent war or if it must be supplemented by third-party involvement to contain escalatory processes.

Which scientific methods are employed?

The author uses a structured focused comparison, applying similar analytical questions to both case studies to assess historical, political, and military developments.

What is covered in the main body of the work?

The main body contains a theoretical framework, detailed historical case studies of the Beagle Channel and Cenepa crises, and an evaluation of how regime type influences conflict outcomes.

Which keywords characterize this research?

Key concepts include deterrence, mediation, crisis escalation, territorial disputes, and the impact of domestic political conditions on national leaders.

How did Chile successfully deter Argentina during the Beagle Channel dispute?

Chile utilized a strategy of denial, making it clear through credible threats and the pursuit of third-party support that an invasion of the contested islands would be prohibitively costly for Argentina.

Why did the Cenepa crisis escalate despite being between two democratic regimes?

The author argues that populist leadership in both Ecuador and Peru, coupled with high autonomy for their respective militaries, caused leaders to fear domestic political backlash if they chose to negotiate early, leading to overconfidence and the failure of deterrence.