ABSTRACT
This chapter presents the first major theoretical elaboration of the territorial explanation of war after its original formulation in Vasquez. It originated from two puzzles regarding rivalries—first, most major state rivalries end in war but some do not, and second, some major state rivals that go to war do not have territorial disputes. Could the logic of the territorial explanation provide solutions to each puzzle? The first puzzle was resolved by arguing that the few major state rivals that did not go to war would be those that were not centered on territorial disputes—a prediction easily derived from the logic of the explanation. To solve the second puzzle involved more thought and reflection on history. Out of the latter arose the idea of two basic paths to war, which is the major theoretical contribution of the piece. The article argues that among major state rivals there are two distinct paths to war.
