Leader Statements and the Effect of Accommodative and Coercive Language in Interstate Conflict

Abstract

Abstract Do leaders’ statements influence the trajectory of interstate conflicts? More specifically, do coercive or accommodative statements influence immediate deterrence and reconciliation? This study expands upon the contributions of McManus (“Fighting Words: The Effectiveness of Statements of Resolve in International Conflict,” Journal of Peace Research 51, no. 6 [2014]: 726–40) by measuring the presence of coercive and accommodative language in US presidential statements and examines whether these types of statements are associated with conflict events during militarized interstate disputes. Accounting for endogeneity, the findings suggest that higher rates of coercive statements deter adversaries from engaging in the use of military force, while higher rates of accommodative statements induce the adversary into negotiations. Importantly, coercive statements do not appear to incite hostilities through provocation, nor do accommodative statements appear to invite escalation by signaling weakness.