State Death in the International System – Exam Prep Notes

Page 1

• Article details: “State Death in the International System,” Tanisha M. Fazal, International Organization (Vol. 58 No. 2, Spring 2004).

Page 2

• Research question: When & why do states die?
• Core claim: Buffer states (located between rival powers) face highest risk of coercive elimination.
• Findings preview: ① Buffers far likelier to disappear; ② Violent state death stops after $1945$; ③ Power–survival link weak.

Page 3

• Definition: State death = formal loss of independent foreign-policy authority to another state.
• Frequency $1816–2003$: $50/202 \; (\approx 25\%)$ states died; most by violence.
• Significance: challenges assumption that survival is normally assured.

Page 4

• Theoretical tension: Neorealist selection (states that act “rationally” survive) vs. observed deaths.
• Author’s twist: Great powers sometimes kill the very states whose neutrality they ‘need’ (buffers).

Page 5

• Security-dilemma logic: Each rival prefers buffer alive but fears being “suckered” if the other conquers it.
• Control of buffer ⟶ strategic edge, so incentives favour pre-emptive conquest.

Page 6

• Contrast geographies: Non-buffers face only one proximate power ⇒ no race to seize.
• Primary hypothesis $H1$: Buffer states more likely to die than non-buffers.

Page 7

• Alternative (balancing) hypotheses:
  • $H2$: Weak power ⇒ higher death risk.
  • $H3a$: No alliance ⇒ higher death risk.
  • $H3b$: Alliances could select risky states ⇒ allied may die more.
  • $H3c$: Net alliance effect indeterminate.
  • $H4,H5$ apply $H2,H3$ specifically to buffers.

Page 8

• Neorealism expects behaviour (balancing) to determine survival; author will empirically test this against buffer claim.

Page 9

• State sample: Correlates of War (COW) interstate-system membership criteria (population $\ge 500{,}000$ & diplomatic recognition / League / UN).

Page 10

• State death typology: Conquest, prolonged occupation, federation/confederation, dissolution.
• Resurrection treated as separate case to avoid hindsight bias.

Page 11

• Table 1 lists $50$ deaths $1816–1992$; $35$ violent.

Page 12

• Violent deaths dominate ⇒ main tests focus on this subset; later robustness includes all deaths.

Page 13

• Buffer definition: State physically between two enduring rivals (unless separated by ocean).
• Uses Goertz–Diehl rivalry data.

Page 14

• Table 2 enumerates buffers (e.g., Poland, Belgium, Korea, Jordan, etc.) and their associated rivalries.

Page 15

• Coding cautions: Some buffers under-counted (Cold War oceans, colonial entities). Alternative codings give similar sets.

Page 16

• Geographic method: Draw lines between outer borders of rivals; any state inside zone = buffer.

Page 17

• Figure illustrates buffer-area drawing (Franco-Prussian case).

Page 18

• Control variables:
  • Alliances (COW): dummy per year.
  • Capabilities: Composite Index of National Capability (CINC); logged.

Page 19

• Method: Event-history (Cox proportional hazards). Dependent variable = annual hazard of death.
• Expectation table: Buffers >1 hazard; post-$1945$ <1; power <1; alliances unclear.

Page 20

• Table 4 (violent deaths):
  • Buffer hazard $≈2.4$ (significant).
  • Post-$1945$ hazard $≈0.06$ (death nearly disappears).
  • Power & alliances statistically negligible.
• Same pattern for all deaths (buffer $≈3.1$).

Page 21

• Interpretation: Geography trumps power; alliance effect ambiguous; post-war era uniquely safe.

Page 22

• Table 5 (buffers only): Power lowers risk slightly for all deaths, not for violent; alliances still null ⇒ limited support for balancing.

Page 23

• Robustness checks (Table 6):
  • Re-code Cold-War Europe as buffers; exclude WWII deaths; add Soviet satellites ➔ core results unchanged.

Page 24

• Case study 1 introduction: Partitions of Poland illustrate classic buffer death.

Page 25–27 (Poland)

• Three neighbouring rivals (Russia, Prussia, Austria) each feared the others’ gains.
• Sequential partitions $1772,1793,1795$ eliminated Poland.
• Polish internal reforms & alliances failed; buffer position fatal.

Page 28

• Case study 2 intro: U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic $1916$—initially coded non-buffer, but rivalry logic still applies (US vs Germany).

Page 29–30 (Dominican Republic)

• U.S. feared German Caribbean foothold (pre-WWI).
• Roosevelt Corollary, customs receivership, then full occupation; local agency minimal.

Page 31

• Post-$1945$ puzzle: Why has violent state death vanished?
  1. Bipolar stability.
  2. Rising occupation costs.
  3. Norm of territorial integrity.
• Likely combination; needs further study.

Page 32

• Even non-violent deaths influenced by buffer logic; mode (peaceful vs violent) varies, occurrence still geography-driven.

Page 33–35

• Conclusions:
  • Buffer status and post-$1945$ era overwhelmingly predict survival.
  • Behavioural factors (power, alliances) weak; selection mechanisms limited.
  • Future work: why some buffers survive, why norm strength rose, differentiation of death modes.
• References list (omitted from exam notes).