Territorial issues tend to be salient due to tangible factors such as resources and intangible factors such as cultural or historical connections. Yet regime disputes (in which a state is seeking the overthrow of another state's regime) also tend to be salient due to political leaders' desire to retain power. Do rivalries rooted in regime issues consequently tend to be as intractable as rivalries rooted in territorial issues? In this study, I argue that territorial rivalries tend to be enduring due to broad domestic bases of political support for continuing to pursue territorial claims, which reduces the likelihood that territorial rivalries will terminate upon leadership change. Regime rivalries, on the other hand, tend to be relatively short lived due to narrower bases of political support for continuing to engage in rivalry and close associations between regime issues and particular political leaders, increasing the likelihood that leadership turnover will lead to rivalry termination. Expectations concerning the mechanisms that sustain territorial rivalry and facilitate the termination of regime rivalry are supported through a comparative analysis of the Ethiopia–Somalia and Mozambique–Rhodesia rivalries.
Dreyer, David R. 2015. "Issue Variation and Rivalry Duration: A Comparative Analysis." Peace & Change 40 (March): 194-214. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pech.12117/abstract