Krista Wiegand, Ph.D.
kwiegand@utk.edu
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Phone: 8659740969
Address: Howard Baker Center for Public Policy, 1640 Cumberland Ave., University of Tennessee
City: Knoxville, Tennessee - 37996
Country: United States
About Me:
I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Director of the Global Security Program and Faculty Fellow at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy, at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. I am an International Relations scholar specializing in international conflict management and political violence - specifically conflict resolution, territorial and maritime disputes, mediation, rebel and terrorist group violence, and East Asian security.
I am currently Co-Editor-in-Chief with Dr. Brandon Prins of the journal International Studies Quarterly, the flagship journal of the International Studies Association, until the end of 2023.
I have written two books - Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy, & Settlement (University of Georgia Press, 2011) and Bombs and Ballots: Governance by Islamic Terrorist and Guerrilla Groups (Routledge, 2010), edited another book - The China-Japan Border Dispute: Islands of Contention in a Multidisciplinary Perspective (Routledge, 2015), and am currently writing a book on territorial and maritime disputes with Dr. Emilia J. Powell. I have written 39 journal articles, book chapters, and policy briefs and am involved in 8 other research projects. I was a Senior Fulbright Scholar in the Philippines in 2017 and am involved in 2 U.S. government funded data collection projects, one from the Department of Defense Minerva Initiative and the other from the National Science Foundation.
Research Interests
Conflict Processes & War
Political Violence
International Law & Organization
Territorial Politics
Conflict Resolution
Armed Conflict
Civil War
Philippines
South China Sea
Countries of Interest
Philippines
China
Japan
South Korea
Bahrain
Qatar
My Research:
interstate conflict, civil conflict, political violence, conflict management/processes, territorial and maritime disputes, coercive diplomacy, mediation, legally binding resolution methods, militarized interstate disputes, bargaining strategies, grievances and strategies of terrorist and rebel groups, reputation for resolve, issues approach, international maritime law
South China Sea territorial and maritime disputes, East China Sea dispute (Senkaku/Diaoyu), Dokdo/Takeshima dispute, US security strategy in East Asia, Philippine foreign policy, Hezbollah, Middle East power politics
Publications:
Journal Articles:
This article introduces the Peaceful Resolution of Territorial Disputes (PRTD) dataset, covering all interstate territorial disputes (1945-2015). Our dataset captures proposals for the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes made by states involved in territorial claims at the disputant-year level. These proposals provide a concrete measure of changing state preferences toward negotiations, non-binding, and binding third-party dispute resolution methods over time. In contrast to existing attempt-level data, the monadic panel design of the dataset captures not only actual attempts at peaceful resolution—the result of an agreement between disputants—but also proposals for methods that did not occur but were preferred at a particular time point.. Our dataset allows for robust and generalizable quantitative analyses of the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes that are sensitive to temporal, regional, claim-based, and state-level trends. To demonstrate the utility of our dataset, we use hybrid logistic regression to examine the determinants of binding PRTD proposals. Over-time changes in characteristics such as regime type and treaty commitments influence attitudes toward binding settlement methods differently than disputant-level measurements. We also show that time has a distinctively nonlinear effect.
Why are so many territorial disputes peacefully resolved by states led by authoritarian leaders? Since democracy is generally correlated with peaceful dispute resolution, it is interesting to observe that most territorial dispute resolution attempts from 1945 to 2008 have been pursued by authoritarian regimes. This study presents an argument about how leadership by the military or civilians and individual or collective rule influence such resolution attempts. Regimes that maintain a decent amount of legitimacy and are more risk acceptant are expected to be more likely to seek peaceful dispute resolution, while those regime types that are lacking such legitimacy and are therefore more concerned about the risk of removal from office are expected to be less likely to do so. Likewise, regimes that are more legitimate and risk acceptant are expected to be more likely to pursue legally binding resolution methods. Analyzing all territorial disputes from 1945-2008, the study finds that 1) machines (single parties led by collective rule) and strongmen (military regimes led by individual leaders) are more likely to pursue peaceful dispute resolution than democracies, and 2) different types of authoritarian regimes choose different types of dispute resolution methods.