Abstract
Global armed conflicts show variations in intensity influenced by the type of issue incompatibility. This study aims to analyze the influence of territorial, ideological, and combined incompatibilities on the probability of high-intensity conflict escalation, as well as its implications for conflict mitigation strategies. Global conflict dyadic data were analyzed using a multilevel logistic regression model with controls for time, region, and conflict type. The results show that ideology-based conflicts have a lower probability of reaching high intensity than territorial conflicts (OR ≈ 0.51, p < 0.05), while conflicts with a combination of ideology and territory tend to be at greater risk of high escalation (AM effect ≈ +26.6 points), although the effect is not yet statistically significant. Temporal analysis shows a downward trend in conflict intensity over time, especially in the post-Cold War period, while regional effects and conflict types show significant variation. These findings fill a gap in the literature on the dual interaction of ideological and territorial claims, showing that the highest escalation of violence occurs when symbolic and material dimensions are intertwined. In conclusion, conflict escalation is more influenced by a combination of issues and structural characteristics of conflict than by ideology alone. The novelty of this research lies in the identification of the strengthening effect of dual incompatibility and the downward trend in conflict intensity after the Cold War, which emphasizes the importance of a relational and temporal context-based mitigation approach in global conflict management.
References
Avis, W. (2019). Current trends in violent conflict.
Barnes, S. H. (1966). Ideology and the organization of conflict: On the relationship between political thought and behavior. The Journal of Politics, 28(3), 513–530.
Bösch, R. (2017). Conflict escalation. In Oxford research encyclopedia of international studies.
Brecher, M. (1996). Crisis escalation: Model and findings. International Political Science Review, 17(2), 215–230.
Brecher, M. (2017). Theory II: Unified Model of Crisis (UMC) & ICB FrameWork. In A Century of Crisis and Conflict in the International System: Theory and Evidence: Intellectual Odyssey III (pp. 53–82). Springer.
Burghardt, A. F. (1973). The bases of territorial claims. Geographical Review, 225–245.
Cook-Huffman, C. (2008). The role of identity in conflict. In Handbook of conflict analysis and resolution (pp. 45–57). Routledge.
Coşereanu, M.-L. (2010). SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND MILITARY TECHNOLOGY–ROMANIAN’S SECURITY AND DEFENSE FACTORS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW POWER STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD. Strategic Impact, (35), 75–86.
Cristadoro, N. (n.d.). Ideologies and Motivations. Hybrid Warfare Reference Curriculum Volume I, 71.
Dudouet, V. (2006). Transitions from violence to peace: Revisiting analysis and intervention in conflict transformation.
Fierke, K. (2005). Diplomatic Interventions: Conflict and change in a globalizing world. Springer.
Harbom, L., & Wallensteen, P. (2005). Armed conflict and its international dimensions, 1946-2004. Journal of Peace Research, 42(5), 623–635.
Hedeker, D. (2003). A mixed‐effects multinomial logistic regression model. Statistics in Medicine, 22(9), 1433–1446.
Jeong, H.-W. (1999). Conflict resolution: Dynamics, process and structure. Ashgate Aldershot, UK.
Johnson, D. D., & Toft, M. D. (2013). Grounds for war: The evolution of territorial conflict. International Security, 38(3), 7–38.
Keltner, D., & Robinson, R. J. (1993). Imagined ideological differences in conflict escalation and resolution. International Journal of Conflict Management, 4(3), 249–262.
Kinsella, D., & Russett, B. (2002). Conflict emergence and escalation in interactive international dyads. Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1045–1068.
Kolers, A. (2009). Land, conflict, and justice: A political theory of territory. Cambridge University Press.
Krause, K. (2016). From armed conflict to political violence: Mapping & explaining conflict trends. Daedalus, 145(4), 113–126.
Miller, B. (2002). When opponents cooperate: Great power conflict and collaboration in world politics. University of Michigan Press.
Oberschall, A. (1978). Theories of social conflict. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 291–315.
Regehr, E. (2011). Armed conflict: Trends and drivers. Vancouver: The Simons Foundation.
Sundberg, R., Eck, K., & Kreutz, J. (2012). Introducing the UCDP non-state conflict dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 49(2), 351–362.
Tkacova, K., Idler, A., Johnson, N., & López, E. (2023). Explaining conflict violence in terms of conflict actor dynamics. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 21187.
Ugarriza, J. E. (2009). Ideologies and conflict in the post‐Cold War. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20(1), 82–104.
Wallensteen, P., & Sollenberg, M. (1995). After the Cold War: Emerging patterns of armed conflict 1989—94. Journal of Peace Research, 32(3), 345–360.
Walter, B. F. (2003). Explaining the intractability of territorial conflict. International Studies Review, 5(4), 137–153.
Recommended Citation
Rajagukguk, Michael Haratua and Siagian, Ruben Cornelius RCS
(2026)
"THE EFFECT OF INCOMPATIBILITY TYPES ON THE ESCALATION OF GLOBAL ARMED CONFLICTS,"
Journal of Terrorism Studies: Vol. 8:
No.
1, Article 2.
DOI: 10.7454/jts.v8i1.1099
Available at:
https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/jts/vol8/iss1/2
Included in
Defense and Security Studies Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, Political Science Commons, Research Methods in Life Sciences Commons, Social Justice Commons, Social Statistics Commons, Terrorism Studies Commons