Most state pairs lack the proximity and power to fight at all

Evidence

Weede (1976, 396) claims we should restrict analysis to relevant dyads because “only in this relatively small subset of dyads is there a possibility for irreconcilable conflicts of interest to arise and create a substantial risk of war.” Similarly, Maoz and Russett (1993, 627) suggest analysis of all dyads is inappropriate be­ cause “the vast majority are nearly irrelevant. The countries comprising them were too far apart and too weak militarily, with few serious inter­ ests potentially in conflict, for them plausibly to engage in any militarized diplomatic dispute.” — Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts, 112

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains why the field narrows from all dyads to ‘relevant dyads’ — pairs whose geography or capability makes war physically possible.
• CANDY: The counterintuitive stat: the vast majority of country pairs are simply too far apart and too weak to ever fight.