THE TYRANNY OF DISTANCE - REDEFINING RELEVANT DYADS

Investigation of the causes of war requires analysis of the characteri stics and behavior of only those dyads of countries that are potential belligerents. Several scholars have offered rules for delineating suc h ''relevant dyads''. One common element of such rules is contiguity. A second common element is major power status. Any dyad involving eith er contiguous states or a major power is defined as relevant. Such def initions of relevant dyads are simple and useful. Nevertheless, I cont end that some contiguous dyads are not relevant to study of the causes of war, while some non-contiguous dyads are relevant. For example, Is rael and Iraq are neither contiguous, nor major powers. With existing definitions this dyad is not deemed relevant. I offer an operational d efinition of relevant dyads that delineates which dyads are proximate enough in terms of distance and terrain to be potential war fighters, regardless of major or minor power status. Adapting existing work on t he loss-of-strength gradient, I argue that each member of the internat ional system has an area of the globe within which it can act militari ly. This area is the relevant neighborhood of that country. Relevant d yads are found where relevant neighborhoods overlap.