Table 1 Dispute Phase Structure Definitions ______________________________________________________________________________ PHASE TYPE DESCRIPTION ______________________________________________________________________________ Phase** One of six levels of disagreement and conflict; a given dispute may pass (repeatedly) through one or more of the phases. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase I DISPUTE PHASE -- a dispute claimed by at least one party to be an issue of substantive international political signifi- cance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase II CONFLICT PHASE -- a dispute in which at least one of the parties has demonstrated a willingness to use military force to resolve the dispute but as yet has not actually done so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase III HOSTILITIES PHASE -- a dispute involving systematic use of military force, over a specific military objecvtive(s), causing casualties and/or destruction of property. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase IV POST-HOSTILITIES CONFLICT PHASE -- fighting no longer oc- curs as in Phase III, but at least one party continues to view the dispute in military terms. Sporadic violence may still occur, but evidence concerning the cessation of hostilities should suggest something more fundamental than just a temporary lull in intermittent hostilities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase V POST-HOSTILITIES DISPUTE PHASE -- a dispute is no longer viewed in military terms. However the issues of the dis- pute remain, although negotiations for resolution may be taking place. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase VI SETTLEMENT PHASE -- the final phase commencing with a set- tlement or agreement resolving the underlying issues or causes of the dispute. _______________________________________________________________________________ Table 2 Quarrel Phase Structure Definitions ______________________________________________________________________________ PHASE TYPE DESCRIPTION ______________________________________________________________________________ Phase I DISPUTE PHASE -- Discovery or announcement of the existence of a domestic political-security problem (i.e., plots against the government, planned strikes, demonstrations) without any overt action taken by the government to deal with the problem; or overt action taken by the opposition to promulgate those plans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase II CONFLICT PHASE -- Discovery or mention of the existence of a domestic political-security problem with overt action taken on the part of the government (or authorities) including quashing of the plot, arresting, trying, sentencing, and/or executing the opposition -- prior to the initiation of active, hostile destructive actions (property and/or people) by the opposition against the state, government, or society. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase III HOSTILITIES PHASE -- The existence (or initiation of) active, hostile destructive violence used by parties on either side in a systematic manner causing the loss of life and/or destruction or property. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase IV POST-HOSTILITIES CONFLICT PHASE -- Restoration of the status quo of Phase Type II following hostilities (Phase Type III), including the situation in which one side is dominant or vic- torious and the other is unable to respond. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase V POST-HOSTILITIES DISPUTE PHASE -- Discussion and reporting of the domestic political-security problem, without overt actions to either promulgate the claims by the opposition or by the central government authority to suppress those activities, following a Phase Type III in a particular quarrel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phase VI SETTLEMENT PHASE -- The situation in which the substance of the quarrel is settled (no longer viable or of substantive import- ance) either through a rectification and/or amelioration of the conflict or by defeat of any of the parties (i.e., overthrow of government, suppression of plot, rebellion, revolt, coup, etc). ______________________________________________________________________________ Based on the level of inequality, power dominance is defined to be either significant or very great inequality. For great powers and the superpowers, their system scores could be either very great or significant inequality. For large or middle powers, it is only possible for them to achieve a significant unequal relationship and dominance. Table 4 Computation of System Dominance System Power Strongest Power Level of Power Value in Disputes Inequality --------------- --------------- -------------- 1 1/2 0/1 2* 1/2 2/3 3* 1/2 4/5/6 4 3/4 0/1 5* 3/4 2/3 6 5/6/7 0/1 7 5/6/7 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *Signifies instances of a dominance relationship where significant inequality exists between the two sides of the conflict. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CASE OVERVIEW CODEBOOK Variable Type & Variable Name Width Description ---------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------------- QUADISNBR A 8 What is the Qua/Dis case number? CASENAME A 60 What is the case name? SPECIFIC- A 3 What is the generic alphanumeric code for the specific LOCATION geographic location of the most serious party activity involved in this case? For cross-border conflicts the regional geographical area was coded. For those codes refer to the variable Global-Location. The character codes refer to the initial alphanumeric code for each political actor. Appendix 2 displays the various code sequences for each "territorial" political actor. This variable is most useful when isolating the quarrels for a particular actor. GLOBAL- A 3 What is the regional location in which the most serious LOCATION party activity occurred in this case? AFR = Africa NAF = North Africa ASA = Asia NAM = North America CAM = Central America OCN = Oceania EUR = Europe SAM = South America GLO = Global SAS = South Asia MED = Mediterranean SEA = Southeast Asia QUADIS A 1 Of what type of conflict case is this event? Q = Quarrel D = Dispute B = Both (A quarrel was transformed into a dispute) QPHASE N 2 How many phases occur in this case? QREFER N 2 How many agent referrals are undertaken in this phase? MANAGENT N 2 Were any management agents involved in the dispute? 0 = No 1 = Yes PH_TRAJECT N 3 What is the unique phase trajectory for this case? (Refer to the listing of possible phase trajectory types in Appendix 1.) Q_PH_2 N 1 Does this case have a Crisis/Conflict Phase (Phase Type II)? 0 = No 1 = Yes Q_PH_3 N 1 Does this case have a Hostilities Phase (Phase Type III)? 0 = No 1 = Yes Q_PH_4 N 1 Does this case have a Post-Hostilities Crisis/Conflict Phase (Phase Type IV)? 0 = No 1 = Yes Q_PH_6 N 1 Does this case have a Settlement Phase (Phase Type VI)? 0 = No 1 = Yes Q_SETTLE N 2 In what manner, if any, was this case concluded? The variable categories refer to the type of phase "settlement" for the last phase coded for the case. 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = Escalation 4 = Principled 5 = Dispute subordinated to a new separate issue 6 = Dissipation: disappear, of no actor's cause 7 = Dispute becomes subsumed in a larger conflict that is part of the same issue 8 = Partial settlement 9 = Obsolescence of issue 10 = Elimination of one of the parties 11 = Movement to the next phase only 12 = Obsolescence of government (for quarrels) 13 = Becomes dispute due to spillover 14 = Becomes dispute due to management agent intervention 15 = Becomes dispute due to other actor intervention on previous non-recognized actor 16 = Both 9 and 10 27 = Both 3 and 15 17 = Both 6 and 7 28 = Both 6 and 8 18 = Both 8 and 9 29 = Both 4 and 6 19 = Both 8 and 10 30 = Both 5 and 8 20 = Both 6 and 11 31 = Both 5 and 9 21 = Both 6 and 9 32 = Both 5 and 6 22 = Both 6 and 10 33 = All 10, 9 and 6 23 = Both 9 and 11 34 = All 8, 9 and 6 24 = Both 7 and 8 35 = All 5, 7 and 6 25 = Both 8 and 11 36 = All 5, 6 and 9 26 = Both 5 and 7 99 = Ongoing (To code the following variables, focus solely on the primary parties from an overview/synoptic standpoint, and consider the case until it is concluded, or until the time of its coding if the case has not yet concluded.) RESULT N 2 Overall, what was the result of the dispute for each side in it? 1 = Not relevant 2 = Debatable 3 = Don't know 4 = Side A advantaged, side B not advantaged 5 = Side B advantaged, side A not advantaged 6 = Side A advantaged, side B disadvantaged 7 = Side B advantaged, side A disadvantaged 8 = Side A not advantaged, side B disadvantaged 9 = Side B not advantaged, side A disadvantaged (cont'd) 10 = Sides A and B advantaged 11 = Sides A and B not advantaged 12 = Sides A and B disadvantaged SATISFYA N 2 As judged by evident public expressions was Side A satis- fied with the outcome of the dispute in its final phase? 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = Side A not satisfied 4 = Side A had a mixed reaction 5 = Side A was satisfied SATISFYB N 2 As judged by evident public expressions was side B satis- fied with the outcome of the dispute in its final phase? 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = Side B not satisfied 4 = Side B had a mixed reaction 5 = Side B was satisfied AGGRESSOR N 2 With respect to the primary parties in this case, which Side, A or B (or both) initiated the dispute and/or hostilities? 0 = not known 1 = Side A initiated 2 = Side B initiated 3 = Sides A & B initiated simultaneously (Consider the probable outcome of this conflict case with regard to the following occurrences if no management agent had become involved.) INTENSITY N 2 In the context in which it arose how likely was it that the dispute would intensify (that is, more to a higher phase, through phase III, or "hostilities") if no agent had been involved)? 1 = Not relevant (no agent) 2 = No information 3 = Unclear/debatable 4 = Very likely 5 = Possibly 6 = 50/50 chance 7 = Unlikely 8 = Very unlikely CONTINUE N 2 In the context in which the dispute arose, how long would the major conflicting sides have been likely to continue to prosecute their disagreement before letting their claims lapse without a formal settlement, if no agent had been involved? 1 = Not relevant (no agent) 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = For less than 1 year 5 = For less than 1-5 years 6 = For less than 5-10 years 7 = For less than 10-20 years 8 = For more than 20 years SPREAD N 2 In the context in which the dispute arose, how would other parties have become involved during this conflict if no agent had been involved at all? 1 = Not relevant (no agent) 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = No others would have become involved 5 = By providing open diplomatic support 6 = By providing economic support 7 = By providing arms and equipment and/or sanctuary and refuge 8 = By providing irregular troops 9 = By using their own regular troops SPREADMIL N 2 In the context in which the dispute arose, how would other parties have become involved during this conflict if no agent had been involved militarily? 0 = Not relevant (no agent) 1 = Not relevant (no agent involved militarily) 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = No others would have become involved 5 = By providing open diplomatic support 6 = By providing economic support 7 = By providing arms and equipment and/or sanctuary and refuge 8 = By providing irregular troops 9 = By using their own regular troops 10 = By both 5 and 6 11 = By both 5 and 7 12 = By both 5 and 8 SOVAMWAR N 2 How likely was Soviet-American war during this dispute, if no agent had been involved? 1 = Not relevant (no agent) 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = Very likely 5 = Possible 6 = Unlikely 7 = Impossible SETLMENT N 2 What type of settlement would likely have been reached if no agent had been involved? 1 = Not relevant (no agent) 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = None 5 = Principled agreement 6 = Dispute subordinated to a new separate issue 7 = Dissipation: disappears of no human cause 8 = Dispute became subsumed in a larger conflict 9 = Partial settlement 10 = Obsolescence of issue 11 = Elimination of one of the parties 12 = Both 5 and 11 13 = Both 9 and 11 (cont'd) 14 = Both 6 and 9 15 = Both 8 and 9 16 = Both 9 and 10 17 = Quarrel becomes a dispute GROUP N 1 To what phase trajectory grouping does this case belong? 1 = Mere Disputes 2 = Mere Crises 3 = Tenuously Terminated Hostilities 4 = Diffused Hostilities OUTCOME N 1 What was the general outcome of the conflict case? 1 = Complete settlement 2 = Dissipation/Obsolescence 3 = New case evolution 4 = Complete defeat 5 = None, ongoing ISSUE N 2 What was the generic type of issue under contention? Categories are organized by conflict management perspective. 10 = Colonial 11 = Colonial, Cold War 20 = Borders/Territorial 21 = Borders/Territorial, Cold War 30 = International Status 31 = International Status, Cold War 40 = Anti-Regime 41 = Anti-Regime, Cold War 50 = Human Rights 51 = Human Rights, Cold War 60 = Resource 61 = Resource, Cold War 70 = Navigation 71 = Navigation, Cold War 80 = Terrorism 81 = Terrorism, Cold War POWER- N 1 As a measure of the inequality of the power on both sides EQUALITY of the case, what is the difference on the Cox-Jacobson scale between the strongest power on side A and the strongest power on side B? 0 = Equality 6 = Maximum Inequality STRONGEST- N 1 What is the Cox-Jacobson score of the strongest actor in- POWER volved in this conflict case? 1 = Superpower 2 = Great Power 3 = Large Power 4 = Middle Power 5 = Small Power 6 = Smallest Power 7 = Micro Power DOMINANCE N 1 Using the difference in the Cox-Jacobson scores, and the presence of the strongest power in the case, code for each conflict case for the following occurrences: 1 = Either a superpower or great power is involved and the level of power inequality is low 2 = Either a superpower or great power is involved and the level of power inequality is moderate 3 = Either a superpower or great power is involved and the level of power inequality is great 4 = Either a large or middle power is involved and the level of power inequality is low 5 = Either a large or middle power is involved and the level of power inequality is moderate 6 = Either a small, smallest or micro power is involved and the level of power inequality is low 7 = Either a small, smallest or micro power is involved and the level of power inequality is moderate - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ACTOR - INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATIONS (Code only for primary parties in this case. Evaluate the following institutional or status affiliations for each side during the most intense phase of the case. For example, code for a phasetype "II" over a phasetype "I" and code for a phasetype "III" over a phasetype "II." Code each side of the case.) Use the following codes: 0 = None 1 = At least one party on this Side 2 = All parties on this Side NAT_SIDE_A N 1 Were there nation-states as primary parties on Side A? NON_SIDE_A N 1 Were there non-national actors as parties on side A? INT_SIDE_A N 1 Were there international organizational actors as parties on side A? NAT_SIDE_B N 1 Were there nation-states as parties on side B? NON_SIDE_B N 1 Were there non-national actors as parties on side B? INT_SIDE_B N 1 Were there international organizational actors as parties on side B? UN_SIDE_A N 1 Were there UN members as parties on side A? UN_SIDE_B N 1 Were there UN members as parties on side B? OAS_SIDE_A N 1 Were there OAS members as parties on side A? OAS_SIDE_B N 1 Were there OAS members as parties on side B? OAU_SIDE_A N 1 Were there OAU members as parties on side A? OAU_SIDE_B N 1 Were there OAU members as parties on side B? AL_SIDE_A N 1 Were there Arab League members as parties on side A? AL_SIDE_B N 1 Were there Arab League members as parties on side B? NTO_SIDE_A N 1 Were there NATO members as parties on side A? NTO_SIDE_B N 1 Were there NATO members as parties on side B? WTO_SIDE_A N 1 Were there Warsaw Treaty Organization members as parties on side A? WTO_SIDE_B N 1 Were there Warsaw Treaty Organization members as parties on side B? COE_SIDE_A N 1 Were there Council of Europe members as primary parties on side A? COE_SIDE_B N 1 Were there Council of Europe members as parties on side B? ISL_SIDE_A N 1 Were there Islamic Conference members on side A? ISL_SIDE_B N 1 Were there Islamic Conference members on side B? NAC_SIDE_A N 1 Were there members of the Non-Aligned Conference on side A? NAC_SIDE_B N 1 Were there members of the Non-Aligned Conference on side B? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The following variables have been added to this portion of the SHERFACS dataset. They were designed to measure the conjoint membership status (including member- ship in international organizations) and the various combinations of "state-level" identification of both sides in the dispute. This status is then re- ported in a single variable. STATE N 1 What was the distribution of state actors in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No state actors involved in the case 1 = Some state actors involved on only one side of the case 2 = All state actors involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some state actors involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some state actors involved on one side and all state actors involved on the other side of the case 5 = All state actors involved on both sides of the case NON-STATE N 1 What was the distribution of non-state actors in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No non-state actors involved in the case 1 = Some non-state actors involved on only one side of the case 2 = All non-state actors involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some non-state actors involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some non-state actors involved on one side and all non-state actors involved on the other side of the case 5 = All non-state actors involved on both sides of the case IO N 1 What was the distribution of international organizational actors in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No international organizational actors involved in the case 1 = Some international organizational actors involved on only one side of the case 2 = All international organizational actors involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some international organizational actors involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some international organizational actors involved on one side and all international organization actors involved on the other side of the case 5 = All international organizational actors involved on both sides of the case UN N 1 What was the distribution of UN membership among the actors involved in this guarrel or dispute? 0 = No UN members involved in the case 1 = Some UN members involved on only one side of the case 2 = All UN members involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some UN members involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some UN members involved on one side and all UN members involved on the other side of the case 5 = All UN members involved on both sides of the case OAS N 1 What was the distribution of OAS membership among the actors involved in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No OAS members involved in the case 1 = Some OAS members involved on only one side of the case 2 = All OAS members involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some OAS members involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some OAS members involved on one side and all OAS members involved on the other side of the case 5 = All OAS members involved on both sides of the case OAU N 1 What was the distribution of OAU membership among the actors involved in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No OAU members involved in the case 1 = Some OAU members involved on only one side of the case 2 = All OAU members involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some OAU members involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some OAU members involved on one side and all OAU members involved on the other side of the case 5 = All OAU members involved on both sides of the case AL N 1 What was the distribution of Arab League member- ship among the actors involved in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No AL members involved in the case 1 = Some AL members involved on only one side of the case 2 = All AL members involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some AL members involved on both sides of the case (cont'd) 4 = Some AL members involved on one side and all OAU members involved on the other side of the case 5 = All AL members involved on both sides of the case NATO N 1 What was the distribution of NATO membership among the actors involved in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No NATO members involved in the case 1 = Some NATO members involved on only one side of the case 2 = All NATO members involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some NATO members involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some NATO members involved on one side and all NATO members involved on the other side of the case 5 = All NATO members involved on both sides of the case WTO N 1 What was the distribution of Warsaw Pact membership among the actors involved in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No WTO members involved in the case 1 = Some WTO members involved on only one side of the case 2 = All WTO members involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some WTO members involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some WTO members involved on one side and all WTO members involved on the other side of the case 5 = All WTO members involved on both sides of the case COE N 1 What was the distribution of Council of Europe membership among the actors involved in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No COE members involved in the case 1 = Some COE members involved on only one side of the case 2 = All COE members involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some COE members involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some COE members involved on one side and all COE members involved on the other side of the case 5 = All COE members involved on both sides of the case ICO N 1 What was the distribution of Islamic Conference membership among the actors involved in this quarrel or dispute? 0 = No ICO members involved in the case 1 = Some ICO members involved on only one side of the case 2 = All ICO members involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some ICO members involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some ICO members involved on one side and all ICO members involved on the other side of the case 5 = All ICO members involved on both sides of the case NON-ALIGNED What was the distribution of the Non-Aligned Conference member- ship among the actors involved in this quarrel or dispute? N 1 0 = No NAC members involved in the case 1 = Some NAC members involved on only one side of the case 2 = All NAC members involved on only one side of the case 3 = Some NAC members involved on both sides of the case 4 = Some NAC members involved on one side and all NAC members involved on the other side of the case 5 = All NAC members involved on both sides of the case - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MAJOR POWER ACTOR INVOLVEMENT Code the following variables if any of the major powers (the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union [until 1990, Russia thereafter], France, the People's Republic of China, or the Republic of China) were involved as either primary or secondary parties in the conflict case. The "Entry Date" refers to the beginning of the phase in which the major power became a participant. These variables could more accurately be described as identifying the involvement of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the veto powers). USA_PH_NBR N 1 What is the phase number of the initial involvement of the United States? USA_PH_TYP N 1 What is the phase type of the initial involvement of the United States? USA_PARTY A 1 One what side (A or B) was the United States in this case? USA_STATUS A 1 What was the status of the United States in this case? (Either a Primary or a Secondary party.) USA_DATE A 8 On what day (MM/DD/YY) did the United States enter this conflict? SOV_PH_NBR N 1 What is the phase number of the initial involvement of the USSR? SOV_PH_TYP N 1 What is the phase type of the initial involvement of the USSR? SOV_PARTY A 1 One what side (A or B) was the USSR in this case? SOV_STATUS A 1 What was the status of the USSR in this case? (Either a Primary or a Secondary party.) SOV_DATE A 8 On what day (MM/DD/YY) did the USSR enter this conflict? UK_PH_NBR N 1 What is the phase number of the initial involvement of the British? UK_PH_TYP N 1 What is the phase type of the initial involvement of the British? UK_PARTY A 1 On what side (A or B) was the United Kingdom in this case? UK_STATUS A 1 What was the status of the United Kingdom in this case? (Either a Primary or a Secondary party.) UK_DATE A 8 On what day (MM/DD/YY) did the United Kingdom enter this conflict? FR_PH_NBR N 1 What is the phase number of the initial involvement of the French? FR_PH_TYP N 1 What is the phase type of the initial involvement of the French? FR_PARTY A 1 One what side (A or B) was France in this case? FR_STATUS A 1 What was the status of France in this case? (Either a Primary or a Secondary party.) FR_DATE A 8 On what day (MM/DD/YY) did France enter this conflict? PRC_PH_NBR N 1 What is the phase number of the initial involvement of the People's Republic of China? PRC_PH_TYP N 1 What is the phase type of the initial involvement of the People's Republic of China? PRC_PARTY A 1 One what side (A or B) was the PRC in this case? PRC_STATUS A 1 What was the status of the PRC in this case? (Either a Primary or a Secondary party.) PRC_DATE A 8 On what day (MM/DD/YY) did the PRC enter this conflict? ROC_PH_NBR N 1 What is the phase number of the initial involvement of the Nationalist Chinese? ROC_PH_TYP N 1 What is the phase type of the initial involvement of the Nationalist Chinese? ROC_PARTY A 1 One what side (A or B) was the ROC in this case? ROC_STATUS A 1 What was the status of the ROC in this case? (Either a Primary or a Secondary party.) ROC_DATE A 8 On what day (MM/DD/YY) did the ROC enter this conflict? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PHASE STRUCTURE Data is collected for each phase in the conflict. Initially the type of the phase is recorded as is the beginning and ending dates for the phase. The code numbers for all primary and secondary parties on each side of the case are listed. Substantive judgments on the interests, costs, and level of internal dissent for each side of the case (primary parties only) are made. The variables of fatalities, type of military action taken, the issue under dispute, the level of threat to the values of the parties, the threat to great power interests, the likelihood of superpower war, alignment of the parties, presence of ethnic components, the presence of an ideological component, and past history are included. The agents taking management actions during the phase are listed, and for each actor that fails to gain access for the purposes of managing the dispute-- the actor, the date of failure, and the reasons for that failure are recorded. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PHASE STRUCTURE CODEBOOK (Code the variables in this section once for each phase that this case goes through.) Variable Type & Variable Name Width Description ---------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------------- QUADISNBR A 8 What is the case code number? NBRPHASE N 2 How many phases are in this case? PHASETYPE N 3 What type of phase is this? 1 = Dispute 2 = Crisis/Conflict 3 = Hostilities 4 = Crisis/Conflict Post-Hostilities 5 = Dispute Post-Hostilities 6 = Settlement P_DATE_BEG A 8 What is the beginning date of this phase? P_DATE_END A 8 What is the ending date of this phase? QPRIMEA N 2 How many primary parties were on side A during this phase? PRIMEA A 5 What are the code numbers of the primary parties on side A 1-9,0 during this phase? You can code up to ten specific actors for each phase. Refer to "SHERFACS: Current Log of Political Actors/Codes," (Project Report Number 1) for the listing of all political actors and their corresponding code sequences. QSECONDA N 2 How many secondary parties were on side A during the phase? SECONDA A 5 What are the code numbers of the secondary parties on side 1-9,0 A during this phase? QPRIMEB N 2 How many primary parties were on side B during this phase? PRIMEB A 5 What are the code numbers of the primary parties on side B 1-9,0 during this phase? QSECONDB N 2 How many secondary parties were on side B during the phase? SECONDB A 5 What are the code numbers of the secondary parties on side 1-9,0 B during this phase? INTERESTSA N 2 What are the primary interests of side A during this phase? 1 = Not relevant 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = Minor, no interests 5 = Primarily economic interests 6 = Primarily political/strategic interests 7 = Both economic and political strategic interests 8 = Humanitarian interests INTERESTSB N 2 What are the primary interests of side B during this phase? 1 = Not relevant 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = Minor, no interests 5 = Primarily economic interests 6 = Primarily political/strategic interests 7 = Both economic and political strategic interests 8 = Humanitarian interests COSTSA N 2 How severe were side A's economic costs that were related to the conduct of this dispute in this phase? 1 = Not relevant 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = Insignificant, minor, or none 5 = Moderate (3-9% of GNP, roughly) 6 = Severe (10% or more of GNP) COSTSB N 2 How severe were side B's economic costs that were related to the conduct of this dispute in this phase? 1 = Not relevant 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = Insignificant, minor, or none 5 = Moderate (3-9% of GNP, roughly) 6 = Severe (10% or more of GNP) DISSENTA N 2 Did a primary party on side A suffer internal divisions and/or dissension during this phase in relation to (code the highest category that applies): 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = No divisions 4 = Its leader and/or top government 5 = Its type of government 6 = Its social order DISSENTB N 2 Did a primary party on side B suffer internal divisions and/or dissension during this phase in relation to (code the highest category that applies): 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = No divisions 4 = Its leader and/or top government 5 = Its type of government 6 = Its social order AGGRESSOR N 2 With respect to the primary parties and issues in the case, which side A or B (or both) initiated the dispute and/or hostilities? 0 = Not known 1 = Side A initiated 2 = Side B initiated 3 = Sides A & B initiated simultaneously FATALITIES N 2 How many deaths were directly related to the dispute during this phase? 0 = Not known 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = None 4 = 1 to 25 5 = 26 to 100 6 = 101 to 1000 7 = 1001 to 2000 8 = 2001 to 10,000 9 = 10,001 to 100,000 10 = 100,001 to 1,000,000 11 = Over 1,000,000 MILITARY N 2 To what extent were parties other than the conflicting ones involved militarily during this phase? 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = Other actors not involved 4 = Other actors provided military and/or diplomatic aid 5 = Other actors in the immediate geographical region were actually in or about to enter the dispute militarily 6 = Other actors elsewhere in the world were actually in or about to enter the dispute militarily. FULL_TYPE A 25 An alphanumeric description of the type of conflict in the case. THT_VALUE N 2 What was the gravity of the threat as perceived by the parties involved in the dispute or quarrel? 1 = Threat to existence 2 = Threat of grave damage 3 = Threat to influence in international system 4 = Threat of loss of colonial territory 5 = Threat to territorial integrity 6 = Threat to political system (cont'd) 7 = Threat to diplomatic personnel and process 8 = Threat to economic interests 9 = Threat (limited) to population and property BLANK = can not determine THT_G_PWR N 2 As seen by the US and the USSR, what was the highest level of threat to their bilateral global balance of power? 1 = Adverse change in global military balance between the superpowers 2 = Decline in superpower's influence within its bloc 3 = Decline in influence with non-bloc client state 4 = Decline in influence with non-aligned group 5 = Decline in influence within adversary bloc 6 = Not a threat to superpower influence 9 = Can not determine PAMSOVWAR N 2 How likely was Soviet-American war during the phase of the dispute? 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = Very likely 4 = Possible 5 = Unlikely 6 = Impossible ALIGNMENT N 2 How were the major conflicting sides aligned during this phase with respect to the cold war alliances or close diplomatic ties with bloc leaders? 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = Members of opposing blocs 4 = Members of the same bloc 5 = Bloc member versus unaligned state 6 = Both unaligned 7 = State versus non-state actor 8 = State versus external non-state actor 9 = Non-state versus non-state actors (internal) 10 = Non-state versus non-state actors (external) 11 = Other ETHNICITY N 2 Were ethnic and/or religious rivalries relevant to the outcome of this phase? 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = No 4 = Yes, slightly 5 = Yes, important determining factors IDEOLOGY N 2 Were ideological factors, including the cold war ones, relevant to the outcome of this phase? 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = No, not relevant 4 = Yes, contending HISTDIV N 2 Around what did relevant historic sources of disagreement between the major conflicting sides center? 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = No historic disagreement 4 = Disputed boundaries 5 = Irredentist claims 6 = Other general historic animosity 7 = Previous antagonism in past case 8 = Previous coincident action in past case 9 = Previous internal dispute over central political authority 10 = Previous joint action with central political authority PHSETTLE N 4 What type of settlement, if any, was reached during this phase? 1 = No information 2 = Debatable 3 = Escalation 4 = Principled 5 = Dispute subordinated to a new separate issue 6 = Dissipation: disappear, of no actor's cause 7 = Dispute becomes subsumed in a larger conflict that is part of the same issue 8 = Partial settlement 9 = Obsolescence of issue 10 = Elimination of one of the parties 11 = Movement to the next phase only 12 = Obsolescence of government (for quarrels) 13 = Becomes dispute due to spillover 14 = Becomes dispute due to management agent intervention 15 = Becomes dispute due to other actor intervention on previous non-recognized actor 16 = Both 9 and 10 27 = Both 3 and 15 17 = Both 6 and 7 28 = Both 6 and 8 18 = Both 8 and 9 29 = Both 4 and 6 19 = Both 8 and 10 30 = Both 5 and 8 20 = Both 6 and 11 31 = Both 5 and 9 21 = Both 6 and 9 32 = Both 5 and 6 22 = Both 6 and 10 33 = All 10, 9 and 6 23 = Both 9 and 11 34 = All 8, 9 and 6 24 = Both 7 and 8 35 = All 5, 7 and 6 25 = Both 8 and 11 36 = All 5, 6 and 9 26 = Both 5 and 7 99 = Ongoing QAGENTS N 2 How many conflict management agents are involved in this conflict during this phase? (Up to ten agents can be listed in the dataset.) AGENT A 5 What are the code numbers of these agents? (Refer to the 1-9,0 code listings for political actors.) QFAILAGENT N 2 How many management agents failed to achieve access to the sides and issues in this phase? (Up to five failed agents can be listed and analyzed.) NFAILAGT A 5 What is the name of the agent that failed to receive 1-5 access? NFAILDATE A 8 What is the date of the failure to gain access? 1-5 WHYFAIL N 2 Why did this agent fail to achieve access? 1-5 1 = Not relevant 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = Side A claims agent biased for side B 5 = Side B claims agent biased for side A 6 = Neither side wanted management 7 = Neither side wanted the intervention of this agent PARTY ACTIONS WITHIN PHASES For each party (both secondary and primary parties) for each phase the presence or absence of various actions are coded. The include both cooperative and conflictual actions. These actions are reminiscent of the action categories development by researchers concerned with international events data analysis.21 These attributes include: internal divisions, clear military advantage, subverion, repression, displease, diplomatic snub, diplomatic protest, appeal, refusal of support, threat, military operations without fighting, military operations with unintended casualties, confrontation, few skirmishes, frequent skirmishes, unconventional warfare, limited warfare, and general warfare. Other attributes were added to be of greater usefulness in analyzing quarrels. They are: limited terrorism, general terrorism, regional terrorism, global terrorism, rioting, strikes, demonstrations, anti-government plot, and tyranny. Cooperation actions (by primary parties only) were also coded-- willingness to talk, providing of assistance to opposing side, voicing of public support for opponent, parties form a joint political union, parties form a regional organization, jointly engage in projects or coordinate policies, exchange of goods, general discussion and, finally, a reduction in the level of hostilities. For the purposes of this dataset, the following operational definitions were used: Actor -- Either (1) a recognized sovereign state (such as France); (2) a high-level interest group capable of significant political action (such as the Palestine Liberation Organization); (3) an international organization (such as the UN); or (4) a transnational organization (such as ITT) -- that is involved with a dispute and somewhat able to affect the course of the dispute. An actor can be a primary or secondary party to the dispute, or a management agent, or sometimes both an agent and a secondary party. With the expansion of the dataset to include quarrels, subnational groups, individuals and organizations are also included in the roster of actors. Primary Party to the Dispute -- Those antagonists around whom the issues revolve and who act directly and overtly against the opposing side in the dispute (such as by sending troops to fight), and cited by Butterworth as such (in cases identified and reported in Managing Interstate Conflict).22 Secondary Party to the Dispute -- An actor whose actions are primarily facilitative of the primary party's actions toward the opposing side. Actions may be indirect and/or covert at the time, but must be vigorous and beyond the level of simply symbolic diplomatic support (such as by sending military or economic aid), especially in quarrels where international actors are secondary parties. Continuity of Actor Activity -- An actor or party continues in the same role it started in, until definite information indicates that it withdraws, changes roles, or switches sides. Side A and B -- A term distinguishing one allied group of antagonists from the group conflicting with it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PARTY ACTIONS WITHIN PHASES CODEBOOK The following variables are coded for each actor involved in this case in this phase. Variable Type & Variable Name Width Description ---------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------------- QUADISNBR A 8 What is the code number of this case? PHASENBR N 2 What is the ordinal number for this phase? PHASETYPE N 3 What is the phase type of this phase? 1 = Dispute 2 = Crisis/Conflict 3 = Hostilities 4 = Crisis/Conflict Post-Hostilities 5 = Dispute Post-Hostilities 6 = Settlement P_DATE_BEG A 8 What is the beginning date of this phase? P_DATE_END A 8 What is the ending date of the phase? (If the phase has not ended code 99/99/99) NACTOR A 5 What is the code number of the actor to be coded for this phase? See the volume "SHERFACS: Current Log of Political Actors/Codes," (Project Report Number 1) for the code sequences for each actor. SIDE A 1 On what side of the conflict is this actor? A = side A B = side B PRIME_SEC A 1 Is the party a primary or a secondary actor in regards to actions taken during this phase of this dispute? P = primary party S = secondary party ENTRY_DATE A 8 On what date did this actor become involved in the substantive issues of this dispute in this phase? Conflictual Actions for Involved Parties (For each party during this phase, code each of the following statements as to whether that type of conflict is known to have been present or not present. If there is no relevant information about the action code "not present/unknown." NOT PRESENT/UNKNOWN = 1; PRESENT = 2.) DIVISION N 1 The party suffered internal divisions and/or dissension relating to its territory. ADVANTAGE N 1 The party has a clear military advantage over its opponents at the beginning of this phase (in terms of arms and soldiers). SUBVERT N 1 The party attempts or does subvert a government (primary party) on the other side. REPRESS N 1 The party represses internal political groups that are related to this dispute. DISPLEASE N 1 The party indicates displeasure with an opponent through public statements or demonstrations. SNUB N 1 The party snubs a party on the other side by ignoring diplomatic protocol. PROTEST N 1 The party issues a diplomatic protest concerning some activity of a primary party on the other side. APPEAL N 1 The party appeals to a larger community or condemns a primary party on the other side. REFUSE N 1 The party refuses to provide or withdraws assistance from a party on the other side. SUPPORT N 1 The party supports an opponent of a party on the other side by providing material or moral support. THREAT N 1 The party issues a threat against an opposing party. NO_FIGHT N 1 Military operations by this party without fighting. CASUALTY N 1 Military operations by this party--unintended casulties. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Variables and categories on this and following pages have been derived from Thomas Sloan, "The Development of Cooperation and Conflict Interaction Scales: An Advance in Measurement and Analysis of Events Data," in Edward E. Azar and Joseph Ben-Dak, Theory and Practice of Events Research: Studies in Inter-Nation Actions and Interactions (N.Y.: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1975), pp. 29-40. (Code the presence or absence of the following variables for primary parties on either side of the dispute. Secondary parties are not to be coded for these variables. If unknown, code "not present/unknown." PRESENT = 2 ; NOT PRESENT/UNKNOWN = 1.) CONFRONT N 1 Military confrontation by the party. FEW_SKIR N 1 Parties have skirmishes along their border at infrequent intervals. FREQ_SKIR N 1 Parties have frequent or routine border skirmishes. UNCONV N 1 Parties engage in an unconventional war. LTD_WAR N 1 Parties engage in a limited war. GEN_WAR N 1 Parties engage in a general or unlimited war. [Terrorist acts can include among the following: threats, extortion, kidnapping, robberies, bombings, shootings, hijackings, assassinations, among others.] LTD_TER N 1 A party conducts a limited terrorist campaign including destruction of property but without loss of life or personal injuries. GEN_TER N 1 A party conducts a general terrorist campaign with direct and large-scale injuries and loss of life. REG_TER N 1 A party conducts a general terrorist campaign limited to a specific geographical region. GLOB_TER N 1 A party conducts a general terrorist campaign with global scope and range. RIOTING N 1 A party conducts or acts to forestall (stop or minimize) rioting. STRIKE N 1 A party conducts or acts to forestall strikes or labor stoppages. DEMONS N 1 A party conducts or acts to forestall a protest demonstration. PLOT N 1 A party conducts, plans, or acts to forestall an anti- government plot. TYRANNY N 1 A party conducts or carries out repression of another sufficient to be described as violating human rights. Cooperative Actions by Primary Parties (For primary parties only, during this phase, code each of the following statements as to whether that type of cooperation is known to have been present or not present. If unknown, code "not present." NOT PRESENT = 1 ; PRESENT = 2.) TALK N 1 Parties willing to talk but not with each other. ASSIST N 1 Parties provides a party on the other side with assistance of an economic, technical, or military nature. PUBSUPPORT N 1 Parties provide public support for the policies, goals or aspirations of a party on the other side. INTEGRATE N 1 Some parties integrate to form a political union. REORGAN N 1 Some parties form a regional organization to accomplish specific goals. PROJECT N 1 Some parties jointly engage in a project of civilian or military nature. POLICY N 1 Some parties coordinate policies or conclude agreements. UNRESTRICT N 1 Parties reduce restrictions on the exchange of materials, people or ideas. EXCHANGE N 1 Parties engage in a cultural exchange or some non- governmental exchange of information or materials. DISCUSS N 1 Parties discuss differences, consult, or negotiate. HOSTILITY N 1 Parties reduced the level of hostilities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REFERRALS TO MANAGEMENT AGENTS For each referral (if any) during a phase information was recorded concerning the date that the referral was made, and the date on which the decision (positive or negative) about the referral was made. Variables were constructed to assess the access the referred agent had to the parties in the dispute, and, the relevance and germaneness of the agent to the parties and issues in the case. The actor making the referral to the agent is coded as is the actor taking leadership (if the agent is an organization) in the organization promoting the referral. For international organizations, those states that oppose and those that support the referral are recorded. Finally, the outcome of the referral process--whether the referral is accepted, denied, ignored, or postponed--is coded. Referrals were operationally defined as being initiatives by an actor to place a case on the agenda of an international organization, or to bring the case to the attention of another actor with the intent that the latter take part in managing the case (taking actions designed to stop hostilities, isolate, restain, abate or settle the conflict). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - REFERRALS TO MANAGEMENT AGENTS CODEBOOK (If there were no referrals of this case to management agents, you are finished coding this case. If there were one or more referrals code the following variables for each referral. Code referrals sequentially for each dispute by phase order.) Variable Type & Variable Name Width Description ---------- ------ ---------------------------------------------- QUADISNBR A 8 What is the case code number? PHASENBR N 2 What is the phase number? PHASETYPE N 3 What is the type of phase? 1 = Dispute 2 = Crisis/Conflict 3 = Hostilities 4 = Crisis/Conflict Post-Hostilities 5 = Dispute Post-Hostilities 6 = Settlement P_DATE_BEG A 8 What is the beginning date of this phase? P_DATE_END A 8 What is the ending date of this phase? NREFERAL N 2 What is the number of this referral? ACCESS N 2 On What level did the manager have access to the parties prior to the referral? 0 = Not applicable 1 = Only on one side 2 = Some on each side 3 = On all primary parties on both sides REL_AGENT N 2 Relevant constitutionally based Management Agent: With respect to the primary parties and the issues in the dispute/quarrel, is this organizational conflict management actor are constitutionally relevant in this case? 0 = Not applicable (not an organization) 1 = Yes, organization is relevant 2 = No, organization is not relvant. GERMANE N 2 For each relevant constitutionally-based management organization agent, if relevant, is the issue or context 0 = Not germane 1 = Peripherally concerned 2 = Principally concerned 9 = Not applicable (agent is not an organization) AGGRESSOR N 2 With respect to the primary [not in SHERFACS] parties and issues in this case, which side A or B (or both) initiated the dispute and/or hostilities? 0 = Not known 1 = Side A initiated 2 = Side B initiated 3 = Sides A & B initiated simultaneously WHO_REFER A 5 What is the name of the actor that referred this case? N_OF_REFER N 2 To how many actors did the above actor refer this case? REF_AGENT A 5 What is the code number of the agent to whom this case was referred? REF_DATE A 8 What was the date of the referral? ACC_DATE A 8 The date on which the decision made concerning acceptance or rejection of the referral? INIT_ACTOR A 5 What is the code number of the primary actor within the organization who initiated this referral? (by making the most serious, sustained intensive effort.) NBRSUPPORT N 2 How many actors visibly and strongly supported this referral? SUPPORT01-20 A 5 What are the code numbers of the actors who visibly and strongly supported this referral, in order of the strength of their support? (Up to twenty actors can be coded.) QNBROPPOSE N 2 How many actors visibly and strongly opposed this referral? OPPOSER01-20 A 5 What are the code numbers of the actors who visibly and strongly opposed this referral, in order of their strength of opposition? (Up to twenty can be coded.) RFOUTCOME N 2 What was the outcome of this referral? 1 = Not relevant 2 = No information 3 = Debatable 4 = Referral accepted 5 = Referral deferred 6 = Referral turned down 7 = Referral ignored - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MANAGEMENT AGENT ACTIONS The last node, agents taking management actions within a phase, contains information on the structure and process of the agent as well as the relationship of the parties to the agent and the actions actually taken by the agent during the phase. In terms of the structure of the agent, the type of agent, the bias of the agent to either side of the dispute, the actors responsible for bringing the case to the attention of the agent are coded. For agents that are organizations, the various actors promoting organizational involvement and those opposing organizational involvement are also coded. Other variables include the relative autonomy of the agent in terms of its relationship with the parties involved and its primary role during during the phase. Information assessing the relative power of the parties to determine the agent's agenda (if an organization) and to determine the actions the agent could take in the case is recorded. Finally, the various specific actions that a management agent could take to "manage" the dispute are coded. They include the following: conciliation, mediation, arbitration, enunciation, good offices, investigation, quarantine, intervention, coercion, observation, discussion, further referral, exhortation, military, political, economic, or humanitarian aid (to either side), adjudication and discussion. For the purposes of this part of the dataset, the following operational definitions have been used: Management Agent -- Any actor, except a primary party to the dispute, engaged in conflict management (see above). Mandated Involvement -- An organization's conflict management involvement in a dispute on the basis of either a defined (through direct constitutional or charter authority) or an entailed (as a direct or necessary consequent of the formal charter) relationship. Serious Task Expansion -- The continuation of serious task expansion is defined to be the expansion or development of activities by a conflict management agent (organization) that are perceived (by actors within the organization) to go beyond management activities undertaken by this agent in either a previous phase of this case or in previous similar cases. Serious (New) Task Expansion -- Is the presence of task expansion in an agent's activities that are accused of beging "beyond the constitutional mandate and provisions of the organization" by one or more significant actors within the organization. Examples of serious (new) task expansion could include: charter reinterpretation, transferral of authority and responsibility of conflict management activities to a different sub-unit of the management agent (e.g., United Nations Uniting for Peace Resolution), or involvement in disputes previously considered to be outside of the organization's competence. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MANAGEMENT AGENT ACTIONS DATASET (Code the following variables once for each management agent for each phase of its involvement in this case.) Variable Type & Variable Name Width Description ---------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------------- QUADISNBR A 8 What is the code number of this case? PHASENBR N 2 What is the number of this phase? PHASETYPE N 3 What is the type of phase? 1 = Dispute 2 = Crisis/Conflict 3 = Hostilities 4 = Crisis/Conflict Post-Hostilities 5 = Dispute Post-Hostilities 6 = Settlement P_DATE_BEG A 8 What is the beginning date of this phase? P_DATE_END A 8 What is the ending date of this phase? AGGRESSOR N 2 With respect to the primary parties and issues in this case, which side A or B (or both) initiated the dispute and/or hostilities? 0 = not known 1 = Side A initiated 2 = Side B initiated 3 = Sides A & B initiated simultaneously NAGENT A 5 What is the code number of this agent? LEADERNBR N 2 How many actors within the organization providing leadership with respect to the organization's handling of this dispute during this phase? (Up to 10 actors can be listed.) LEADER01-10 A 5 What are the code numbers of the actors providing leadership within the organization during its involvement in this phase of this conflict? STOPPERNBR N 2 If the agent is an organization, how many actors provided active efforts to restrict the organization's handling of this dispute during this phase? (Up to ten actors can be listed.) STOPPER A 5 What are the code numbers of the actors opposing the organization's actions in regards to this case in this phase? ATTNDATE A 8 On what date was this dispute brought to the attention of this agent? TYPEAGENT N 2 What type of agent is coded on this card? 1 = no information 2 = debatable 3 = none 4 = collective security IO 5 = collective defense IO 6 = adjudicatory IO 7 = functional/economic IO 8 = affiliative IO 9 = concert 10 = individual ad hoc agent WHOBROUGHT N 2 Who originally brought this case to the attention of this agent? 1 = no information 2 = parties allied with side A 3 = parties allied with side B 4 = another agent already involved with this case 5 = an actor who was a bystander 6 = this same agent itself 7 = this same agent itself, due to its involvement in a previous phase of the case 8 = parties on both sides A and B acting in concert 9 = parties on both sides A and B acting separately RESPONSIBL N 2 Who was primarily responsible for this agent's inter- vention during this phase? 1 = no information 2 = parties allied with side A 3 = parties allied with side B 4 = another agent already involved with this case 5 = an actor who was a bystander 6 = this same agent itself 7 = this same agent itself, due to its involvement in a previous phase of the case 8 = parties on both sides A and B acting in concert 9 = parties on both sides A and B acting separately BIAS_TO N 2 Was this agent apparently biased toward one or more of the sides during this phase? 1 = no information 2 = debatable 3 = yes, for side A 4 = yes, for side B 5 = yes, slightly for side A 6 = yes, slightly for side B 7 = no 8 = slightly biased for both 9 = strongly biased for both BIAS_AGST N 2 Was this agent apparently biased against one or more of the sides during this phase? 1 = no information 2 = debatable 3 = yes, against side A 4 = yes, against side B (cont'd) 5 = yes, slightly against side A 6 = yes, slightly against side B 7 = no 8 = slightly biased against both 9 = strongly biased against both AUTONOMY N 2 With respect to decisions it had to make in this case during this phase, to what degree was the agent relative- ly autonomous of the major conflicting sides? (Autonomy -- how much action could the agent take without the support of either side?) 1 = no information 2 = debatable 3 = not at all autonomous 4 = to a low degree 5 = to a moderate degree 6 = to a high degree MANDTERESP N 2 Was there an agreed-upon perception that the agent's involvement was within its mandated responsibilities? 1 = no information 2 = debatable 3 = inapplicable, agent is not an organization 4 = yes, involvement perceived to be within mandated responsibilities 5 = no, involvement perceived to represent a contin- uation of serious task expansion (task expansion: agent activities perceived to go beyond management activities undertaken by this agent in a previous phase of this case or in previous similar cases) 6 = no, involvement perceived to represent serious (new) task expansion (where agent involvement or activity is charged by any actor involved to lie outside of the prior constitutional basis of the organization) PRIMEROLE N 2 What was the agent's primary role during this phase? 1 = no information 2 = debatable 3 = inapplicable, agent is an organization 4 = private 5 = technocratic 6 = general political 7 = economic 8 = political/strategic AGENDAPOWA N 2 For each side (primary parties only) in each phase with respect to each management agent addressing the problem: To measure the positive or negative power vis-a-vis this agent with this dispute: 1 = does party on side A have a power to unilaterally set agenda [ABSOLUTIST] 2 = does party on side A have a relatively equal power to other parties on side B in the dispute; have a vote [CONTRIBUTORY] (cont'd) 3 = inferior or nihl: with respect to agenda and proposed solutions; and to their implementation 4 = party side A has power to unilaterally keep issue off agenda 9 = not applicable, agent not an organization. AGENDAPOWB N 2 For each side (primary parties only) in each phase with respect to each management agent addressing the conflict: To measure the positive or negative power vis-a-vis the agent with this dispute: 1 = does party on side B have a power to unilaterally set agenda [ABSOLUTIST] 2 = does party on side B have a relatively equal power to other parties on side A in the dispute; have a vote [CONTRIBUTORY] 3 = inferior or nihl: with respect to agenda and proposed solutions and to their implementation 4 = party side B has power to unilaterally keep issue off agenda 9 = not applicable, agent not an organization. AGTACTPOWA N 2 What are the roles of primary parties on side A in the organization with respect to its role in the phase in the case: near absolute power -- schedule of issue, proposal and implementation? 1 = FULL PARTICIPATION including veto over final decisions and/or effective majority. 2 = FULL PARTICIPATION without blocking power over the decision of the IO. 3 = NO PARTICIPATION in organization but with the ability to hinder implementation. 4 = NO SEPARATE IDENTITY: not able to affect implementation or resolution of process. AGTACTPOWB N 2 What are the roles of primary parties on side A in the organization with respect to its role in the phase in the case: near absolute power -- schedule of issue, proposal and implementation? 1 = FULL PARTICIPATION including veto over final decisions and/or effective majority. 2 = FULL PARTICIPATION without blocking power over the decision of the IO. 3 = NO PARTICIPATION in organization but with the ability to hinder implementation. 4 = NO SEPARATE IDENTITY: not able to affect implementation or resolution of process. ACTIONSNBR N 2 How many actions did this agent take on this conflict during this phase? CONCILIATE N 1 Conciliation -- to cause negotiations between parties. MEDIATE N 1 Mediation -- to act as a go-between in negotiation. ARBITRATE N 1 Arbitration -- to decide an issue between parties. ENUNCIATE N 1 Enunciation -- to state and clarify issues. GOODOFFICE N 1 Good Offices -- provide meeting place, support material. INVESTIGAT N 1 Investigation -- as by a committee in the field. QUARANTINE N 1 Quarantine -- to isolate the conflict, e.g. arms embargo. INTERVENE N 1 Intervention -- direct physical presence and contact. COERCION N 1 Coercion -- enforcement actions. OBSERVE N 1 Observation -- teams report to agent. DISCUSSION N 1 Discussion -- with no resolution. REFERRAL N 1 Referral -- to another agent. EXHORT N 1 Exhortation -- plead for parties to reach settlement. MILITAIDA N 1 Military assistance to side A. POLAIDA N 1 Political/diplomatic assistance to side A. ECONAIDA N 1 Economic assistance to side A. HUMANAIDA N 1 Humanitarian assistance to side A. MILITAIDB N 1 Military assistance to side B. POLAIDB N 1 Political/diplomatic assistance to side B. ECONAIDB N 1 Economic assistance to side B. HUMANAIDB N 1 Humanitarian assistance to side B. ADJUDICATE N 1 Adjudication and/or fact finding. NODISCUSS N 1 On agenda, no discussion. NOAGENDA N 1 Unwilling to put on agenda. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Appendix 1 Frequency of Unique Phase Trajectories Number of Number of Phase Trajectory Quarrels Disputes Total ------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----- 1. I 18 102 120 2. I,II 11 33 44 3. I,II,III 6 4 10 4. I,II,III,IV 8 12 20 5. I,II,III,IV,V 6 5 11 6. I,II,III,IV,V,VI 3 6 9 7. I,VI 27 136 163 8. III,IV,V,VI - 2 2 9. II,III,IV,V 109 24 133 10. II,III,IV,V,VI 8 7 15 11. I,II,VI 5 17 22 12. I,II,III,VI - 1 1 13. II,III,IV,III,IV,V,VI - 1 1 14. I,II,III,IV,III,IV,V,VI - 1 1 15. I,II,I - 40 40 16. I,II,I,VI 1 13 14 18. I,II,III,IV,III,IV,III, - 1 1 V,VI 19. I,II,III,IV,VI 1 10 11 21. I,II,I,II 1 1 2 22. II 131 35 166 24. II,III,IV 282 70 352 25. I,II,I,II,III,IV - 2 2 26. II,III,V 189 30 219 27. II,III,IV,VI 5 6 11 28. I,II,III,IV,III,V - 2 2 29. I,II,III,IV,III,V,VI - 1 1 31. II,VI 7 14 21 32. II,I 12 39 51 33. II,III,VI 1 2 3 34. II,III,IV,III 3 2 5 35. I,II,III,IV,III,IV,V - 2 2 36. II,I - 1 1 37. III 4 5 9 38. II,III 34 16 50 39. III,V 6 6 12 40. I,III,V 1 2 3 42. I,II,III,IV,III - 2 2 43. I,II,III,IV,V,IV - 1 1 44. II,III,IV,III,IV,III,IV, - 1 1 III,IV,V 45. II,III,V,VI 12 4 16 46. I,II,III,V 2 4 6 47. I,II,III,V,VI - 2 2 48. I,II,I,II,I - 1 1 49. III,IV,V 2 5 7 50. II,I,VI 5 2 7 Appendix 1 (Continued) Number of Number of Phase Trajectory Quarrels Disputes Total ------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----- 51. II,III,IV,V,IV,V - 1 1 52. II,III,IV,III,VI - 1 1 53. III,IV 4 10 14 54. I,II,III,IV,III,IV 1 2 3 55. I,II,III,IV,III,IV,III - 3 3 56. I,II,III,IV,V,IV,V - 2 2 57. II,III,IV,III,IV,III - 1 1 58. II,III,IV,V,IV,V,VI - 1 1 59. I,II,III,IV,III,VI - 1 1 60. I,II,I,II,III,IV,V - 1 1 61. I,II,III,IV,V,III,IV - 1 1 62. II,I,III - 1 1 63. II,III,IV,III,V,VI - 1 1 64. I,III,IV,V - 1 1 65. III,V,VI 2 1 3 66. II,III,IV,V,III 1 1 2 67. II,III,IV,III,IV,V - 2 2 68. II,III,IV,III - 1 1 69. II,III,IV,III,IV 19 3 22 70. III,VI 2 - 2 71. II,III,IV,III,IV,III,IV,V 1 - 1 72. II,III,IV,III,V 10 - 10 73. I,III,V,VI 1 - 1 74. II,III,IV,V,IV 2 - 2 75. I,III 3 - 3 77. II,III,V,III,IV 1 - 1 78. II,III,IV,III,IV,III,IV 4 - 4 79. I,III,IV 3 - 3 80. II,I,II,III,IV 1 - 1 Appendix 2: Code Sequences for "Territorial" Actors [As of 31 August 1992] The following table lists the number of identified and code-word assigned political actors for each nation of national origin or national location. These numbers reflect additions made through the end of August 1992 and includes material from Keesing's Contemporary Archives for the period 1985 through January of 1992. The column Number of Actors refers to the number of identified non-national actors for each "state actor." The number of on-line textual information for each state actor is listed in the column "Number of Pages." Code Actor/State Number of Number of Prefix Name Actors Pages ------ ---------------- --------- --------- ABU Abu Dhabi 2 1 ADN Aden 2 1 AFG Afghanistan 58 38 ALB Albania 22 15 ALG Algeria 55 28 ALS Alsace (FR) 1 2 AND Andorra 2 6 ANG Angola 16 32 ANT Antiqua 11 9 ANU Anguilla 3 1 ARB Aruba (NET) 11 1 ARC Antarctica (NON) ARG Argentina 94 46 ARM Armenia (CIS) 4 1 ASM American Samoa (USA) AUS Austria 25 23 AUT Australia 19 28 BAH Bahamas 7 10 BAR Barbados 5 9 BCH Bechunaland 2 1 BEL Belgium 47 45 BEN Benin 14 11 BER Bermuda 4 3 BHR Bahrain 5 11 BHU Bhutan 5 6 BLZ Belize 7 11 BNG Bangladesh 58 34 BOL Bolivia 150 71 BOP Bophuthatswana 4 7 BOS Bosnia-Hercegovina 8 1 BOT Botswana 10 11 BRA Brazil 81 42 BRM Burma 84 49 BRN Brunei 6 9 BRT Brittany (FR) 0 12 BUL Bulgaria 41 23 BUR Burundi 21 7 BVI Virgin Islands (UK) 1 1 BYE Belarus (CIS) 4 1 CAM Cambodia 39 49 CAN Canada 32 41 CAR Central African Rep. 27 27 CAY Cayman Islands 0 1 CHD Chad 58 13 CHI Chile 100 89 CIS Ciskei 2 4 CKI Cook Islands 4 1 CMR Cameroon 23 15 CNG Congo 24 9 COL Colombia 95 56 COM Comoros 20 12 CON Concert Agents 29 1 CR Costa Rica 54 41 CRO Croatia 14 1 CRS Corsica (FR) 8 27 CUB Cuba 41 39 CUR Curacao (NET) 15 1 CV Cape Verde 10 9 CYP Cyprus 33 18 CZH Czechoslovakia 55 67 DAH Dahomey 15 1 DEN Denmark 41 48 DJI Djibouti 15 8 DOM Dominica 10 14 DR Dominican Republic 36 26 EC European Communities 10 1 ECU Ecuador 83 36 EGR East Germany 52 29 EGY Egypt 57 52 ELS El Salvador 96 83 EQG Equatorial Guinea 18 17 EST Estonia 6 1 ETH Ethiopia 59 49 FIJ Fiji 16 9 FIN Finland 29 25 FIS Faeroe Islands 2 1 FLK Falkland Islands (UK) 3 1 FR France 261 305 FRG French Guiana 3 9 FRP French Polynesia 11 5 GAB Gabon 17 10 GAM Gambia 14 15 GB Guinea-Bissau 11 10 GDE Guadeloupe 12 17 GEI Gilbert & Ellice Is. 0 1 GEO Georgia 9 1 GER Germany (1990) 42 2 GHA Ghana 58 25 GIB Gibraltar (UK) 6 1 GLD Greenland (DEN) 5 1 GRE Greece 69 46 GRN Grenada 25 14 GUA Guatemala 145 78 GUI Guinea 28 16 GUM Guam 2 1 GUY Guyana 26 17 HAI Haiti 50 24 HKG Hong Kong (UK) 13 6 HON Honduras 70 41 HUN Hungary 56 24 ICE Iceland 12 12 IND India 263 141 INO Indonesia 56 34 IO IO (General) 252 8 IRE Ireland 18 22 IRN Iran 106 87 IRQ Iraq 96 45 ISR Israel 57 52 ITA Italy 123 136 IVC Ivory Coast 15 7 JAM Jamaica 7 10 JAP Japan 31 45 JOR Jordan 28 13 KAZ Kazakhstan 2 1 KEN Kenya 32 17 KIR Kiribati 3 6 KOS Kosovo (YUG) 6 1 KUW Kuwait 15 10 LAO Laos 20 18 LAT Latvia 8 1 LBY Libya 39 24 LEB Lebanon 137 114 LES Lesotho 16 16 LIB Liberia 34 13 LIE Liechtenstein 6 7 LIT Lithuania 14 1 LUX Luxembourg 15 18 MAC Macao 8 5 MAD Madagascar 33 17 MAR San Marino 10 9 MAU Mauritania 38 15 MAY Mayotte 1 2 MCE Macedonia (YUG) 11 1 MDV Maldive Islands 2 7 MEX Mexico 59 46 MGY Malagasy Republic 5 1 MLI Mali 28 10 MLW Malawi 12 19 MLY Malaysia 80 49 MNG Mongolia 18 8 MOL Moldavia (CIS) 5 1 MON Monaco 5 8 MOR Morocco 53 31 MOZ Mozambique 10 17 MRI Marshall Islands 1 1 MRQ Martinique (FR) 8 8 MRT Mauritius 23 16 MTA Malta 9 12 MTS Montserrat 5 1 NAM Namibia 57 50 NAU Nauru 1 7 NCL New Caledonia (FR) 21 9 NEP Nepal 28 17 NET Netherlands 56 54 NGR Nigeria 46 20 NIC Nicaragua 87 56 NIG Niger 27 9 NIU Niue (NZ) 1 1 NKR North Korea 2 11 NMR Northern Marianas 2 1 NON Non-State Actors 23 6 NOR Norway 21 30 NVN North Vietnam 2 1 NZ New Zealand 23 21 OCC Occitania (FR) 2 3 OMN Oman 5 9 PAK Pakistan 97 79 PAN Panama 66 23 PAR Paraguay 53 37 PER Peru 67 37 PHL Philippines 73 60 PLO PLO 76 109 PNG Papua New Guinea 21 16 POL Poland 99 79 POR Portugal 74 47 PR Puerto Rico (USA) 7 1 PRC PRC 46 49 QAT Qatar 2 6 RAS Ras al-Khaimah 0 1 REN Reunion (FR) 7 7 ROC Republic of China 27 27 ROM Romania 58 20 RWA Rwanda 18 7 SAF South Africa 153 123 SAU Saudi Arabia 11 17 SEN Senegal 30 22 SEY Seychelles 15 14 SHR Sharjah 4 1 SIK Sikkim 3 1 SKN St Kitts and Nevis 5 6 SKR South Korea 53 38 SLE Sierra Leone 32 12 SLO Slovenia (YUG) 16 1 SNG Singapore 35 18 SOL Solomon Islands 13 12 SOM Somalia 35 20 SOV USSR 89 138 SPA Spain 158 125 SPR St Pierre and Miquelon 0 4 SRI Sri Lanka 58 36 STL St Lucia 3 8 STP Sao Tome and Principe 15 8 SUD Sudan 76 26 SUR Suriname 50 27 SVG St Vincent/Grenadines 16 1 SVN South Vietnam 16 1 SWE Sweden 21 21 SWS Switzerland 44 38 SWZ Swaziland 12 8 SYN South Yemen 13 12 SYR Syria 60 36 T&T Trinidad & Tobago 25 21 TAD Tadjikistan (CIS) 6 1 TAN Tanzania 13 11 THA Thailand 72 51 TNC Turkish Cyprus 4 1 TNG Tonga 0 5 TOG Togo 21 9 TOK Tokelau 0 1 TRC Turks & Caicos Islands 9 3 TRN Transkei (SAF) 11 5 TUN Tunisia 45 33 TRK Turkey 143 149 TUV Tuvalu 0 5 UAE United Arab Emirates 2 7 UGA Uganda 52 28 UK United Kingdom 223 242 UKR Ukraine (CIS) 6 1 ULS Ulster 20 1 UN United Nations 124 83 UPV Burkina Faso 35 13 URU Uruguay 59 32 USA United States 94 93 UZB Uzbekistan (CIS) 2 1 VAN Vanuatu 20 14 VAT Vatican 2 1 VDA Venda (SAF) 2 4 VEN Venezuela 52 43 VIS Virgin Islands (USA) 3 1 VN Vietnam 31 30 WAL Wallis & Futuna Islands 3 3 WGR West Germany 128 166 WSH Western Sahara 2 3 WSM Western Samoa 4 7 XIS Christmas Islands (NZ) 0 1 YEM Yemen (North) 22 10 YUG Yugoslavia 63 63 ZAI Zaire 56 35 ZAM Zambia 18 9 ZAN Zanzibar 5 1 ZIM Zimbabwe 31 26 IO International 252 8 Organizations NON Non-State Actors 23 6 (Indeterminant Location) CON Concert (Bi-Lateral, Multi-Lateral or Summit Meetings) 29 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Overall Total 9505 5845 Appendix 3: Cox-Jacobson Scale Scores Actor 1945-55 1956-61 1962-72 1972-80 1981-90 -------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- United States super super super super super USSR super super super super super China (Peking) large large large large large France large large large large large Germany (West) middle large large large large UK large large large large large Japan middle middle large large large India middle large large large large Italy middle middle large large large Canada middle middle large large large Sweden middle middle middle middle middle Switzerland middle middle middle middle middle Argentina small middle middle middle middle Australia middle middle middle middle middle Brazil middle middle middle middle large South Africa small middle middle middle middle Belgium middle middle middle middle middle Denmark small small middle middle middle Indonesia middle middle middle middle middle Netherlands small middle middle middle middle Poland small small middle middle middle Spain middle middle middle middle middle Austria small small middle middle middle Cuba small small middle middle middle Germany (East) small small middle middle middle Israel small small middle middle middle Mexico small middle middle middle middle Norway small middle middle middle middle Pakistan small small middle middle middle UAR (Egypt) small small middle middle middle Yugoslavia small small middle middle middle Czechoslovakia small small small small small Finland small small small small small New Zealand small small small small small Philippines small small small small small Turkey small small small small small Venezuela small small small small small Nigeria small small small small middle Luxembourg small small small small small All Others micro micro micro micro micro __________________________________________________________________ Source for the rankings in this table is: Robert W. Cox and Harold K. Jacobson, The Anatomy of Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973), pp. 437-443. ??