Examining conflict management technique sequences in international claims.

This study groups third-party conflict management techniques (CMTs) into binding and non-binding approaches to examine whether and how their sequence and, in more detail, changes therein explain the outcome of international issue claims. Third parties can intervene in disputes by providing good offices or mediation; they also engage with more binding approaches such as arbitration and adjudication. While the literature has established a solid understanding of any of these third-party techniques in issue claims, it has mostly treated them in isolation from each other, thereby ignoring the persistent interdependencies that may establish a sequence of CMTs. We address this shortcoming by developing a theoretical argument for and empirically testing the impact of changes in CMT sequences on the outcome of interstate conflicts. Our results indicate that sequences involving a change in CMTs (from binding to non-binding approaches or vice versa) result in more effective outcomes.