🔎 What Was Tested

The steps-to-war thesis holds that sequential escalatory moves increase the probability of war, but important theoretical objections remain about endogeneity. Critics argue the same empirical patterns could arise if war was already anticipated or if rivalry drives both escalation and war. This study tests whether the historic timing and sequencing of escalation steps in territorial disputes support the causal "steps-to-war" argument or the rival endogeneity explanations.

📅 How Timing Was Analyzed (1919–1995)

• Examined the historic timing and sequencing of escalation steps within territorial claim cases dated 1919–1995.
• Focused on the order in which claim-related actions occurred and whether that ordering is consistent with a causal stepping-stone process rather than mere anticipation or underlying rivalry.

📌 Key Findings

• Clear categorical differences exist between types of territorial claims that go on to produce war and those that do not.
• The observed timing and sequencing of steps provide evidence relevant to the causation debate: sequencing patterns are not uniform across all claims and therefore inform assessments of endogeneity and rival explanations.

💡 Why It Matters

These results refine understanding of how escalation unfolds in territorial disputes and sharpen theoretical debates about causation in the steps-to-war literature. By showing that timing and the categorical nature of claims matter, the study clarifies when sequential actions are more plausibly causal versus when they may reflect preexisting expectations or rivalry dynamics.