Content area
Full text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
Despite much attention to geography within political science in the past decade, the two disciplines have not always coexisted peacefully. Indeed, geographers may well consider the incorporation of spatial themes within political science to be largely superficial, in that they are often based on distances, state size, or proximity--variables that have more to do with geometry than with human and physical geography. This is no more obvious than in the application of geography to conflict studies, where there has been a distinct "spatial turn" over the last two decades. Alex Braithwaite's book on conflict hot spots represents both the promises and drawbacks of the geometric approaches to violence: It is clearly written to impart more practical than theoretical knowledge about the use of "geographic techniques" in studying international disputes, and its guiding hypotheses are largely based on observation over investigation (e.g., Hypothesis 2.7: Conflict hot spots are more likely to be located in states with multiple political boundaries). But it does add to the literature on how to incorporate space into international conflict studies, specifically in its mapping and analysis of Militarized Interstate Disputes (MIDs) patterns.
The author's main argument is that the world hosts several conflict hot spots--defined as spatial and temporal concentrations of conflict events--and that it is possible to predict their occurrence. These are critical to uncover as they influence the process of bargaining between states that disagree over some important issue. It remains unclear...