CODING MANUAL FOR
VERSION 3.0 OF THE CORRELATES OF WAR
FORMAL INTERSTATE ALLIANCE DATA SET, 1816-2000*
(with update information through v3.03)
By Douglas M. Gibler
Assistant Professor of Political Science
University of Kentucky
And
Meredith Reid Sarkees
Professor and Director, Center for Women’s InterCultural Leadership
Saint Mary’s College
Contact Information:
Email: dgibler@uky.edu
Web: www.uky.edu/~dgibler
Phone: (859) 257-9677
Facsimile: (859) 257-7034
Department of Political Science
1627 Patterson Tower
Lexington, KY 40506
ABSTRACT: This coding manual serves as a companion to the release of version 3.0 of the
Correlates of War Formal Interstate Alliance Data Set, 1816-2000. The manual proceeds in six
parts. The first two sections describe the development and major characteristics of the early
Correlates of War Alliance datasets. The third section describes the procedures used to both
identify and code each alliance, while the fourth section provides descriptions of the variable
fields found in the 3.0 data set release. Part five discusses several important changes made from
the original Singer and Small (1966; 1968) data set. The final section provides an aggregate list
of sources consulted in documenting these alliances; sources documenting individual alliances
are available from the author.
* We would like to thank Danette Brickman, John Cotter, Harry Fogler, Russ Hubbard, Neel
Natarajan, Ashley Leeds, Jeff Ritter, Mel Small, David Singer, Glenn Palmer, Scott Bennett, and
Stuart Bremer. The Departments of Political Science at the University of Kentucky and the
Pennsylvania State University also provided institutional support for the project. Any errors in
either the data set or coding manual should be reported to the author. Please cite this coding
manual when using Version 3.0 of the Correlate of War Formal Interstate Alliance Data Set.
UPDATE INFORMATION
V3.01: V3.01 of the alliance data changes the format of one variable, the state names
listed within the data set (in the variable “STATENM”). In version 3.0, some state names
contained commas (e.g., “South Korea” was listed as “Korea, South”). Most statistical software
reading comma-separated-variable data files can handle this format, but it may cause some
problems for custom programs and particular routines. As a result, we modified the state names
in v3.01 to remove the commas (and so, e.g., “Korea, South” is now listed in the data set as
“South Korea”). NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL CORE DATA (in
alliance numbers, alliance types, state membership in alliances, or dates of alliance entry/exit)
HAVE BEEN MADE IN THIS RELEASE. This change in naming convention parallels
upcoming changes in the Correlates of War system membership list, which will be modified to
remove commas in a future version.
V3.03: V3.03 of the alliance data changes the coding of 4 alliances to correct for a typo
and minor inconsistencies with the COW state membership list. Changes are as follows:
1. Alliance #: 2001
Signature Date: April 22, 1813
Change from V3.01: This alliance should be removed from the CoW formal alliance
data set. The end date is before 1/1/1816.
2. Alliance #: 2074
Signature Date: August 27, 1891
Change from V3.01: The end year is 1893, not 1993.
3. Alliance #: 3523
Signature Date: June 17, 1950
Changes from V3.01: UAE should be listed as a member from 12/2/1971, its CoW
membership start date. Tunisia should be listed as a member from 3/20/1956;
STNOTE changed to 1.
4. Alliance #: 3535
Signature Date: October 20, 1955
Change from V3.01: Syria joins Egypt as UAR from 2/1/1958 to 9/29/1961; the
alliance does not exist during these years. The STNOTES and ENDNOTES variables
have been changed accordingly.
1
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CORRELATES OF WAR ALLIANCE DATA
In 1966, J. David Singer and Melvin Small marked the release of their first data set on
alliances in their article “Formal Alliances, 1815-1939: A Quantitative Description.” The
expansion of this dataset was explained in “Formal Alliances, 1816-1965: An Extension of the
Basic Data.” In these two articles, Singer and Small detailed the coding criteria upon which the
data sets had been assembled. First, at least two members of the alliance must be qualified
system members; second, the alliance commitment must be a defense pact, neutrality or nonaggression pact, or an entente; and third, the effective dates of alliance have to be identified.
Implicit within this definition is the formality of the agreement; a formal alliance is a written
agreement that identifies at least the members and the commitment type (Singer and Small,
1968: 1-6).
The original Correlates of War state membership criteria were first developed in Russett,
Singer, and Small (1968) and were later expanded in Singer and Small (1972) and Small and
Singer (1982). The criteria include states that: (1) Have a population greater than 500,000, and
(2) are “sufficiently unencumbered by legal, military, economic, or political constraints to
exercise a fair degree of sovereignty and independence” (Singer and Small, 1972: 20). The
second criterion was operationalized prior to 1920 as recognition by Britain and France, and after
1920 as formal recognition by any two major states or membership in the League of Nations or
United Nations. The latest version of this data is available through cow2.la.psu.edu.
The commitment type of an alliance defines the level of support that an alliance member
pledges to another alliance member. Defense Pacts (Type I) commit states to intervene militarily
on the side of any treaty partner that is attacked. Neutrality and Non-Aggression Pacts (Type II)
specify that parties remain militarily neutral if any co-signatory is attacked. (The neutrality pact
is usually more specific than the more sweeping non-aggression pact.) Finally, Ententes (Type
III) pledge consultation and/or cooperation in a crisis, including armed attack.
In determining the effective dates of the alliance, the start date corresponded to the
signature date of the treaty, even though ratification may have come much later. Alliances not
ratified were excluded from the data set. Termination dates are more difficult to determine,
though end dates could be either: specified in the agreement; the result of a formal abrogation;
the result of informal abrogation via explicitly recognized violation of the commitments, or via
the assumption of new and incompatible obligations by one or more of the signatories (Singer
and Small 1966).
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORIGIONAL ALLIANCE DATASETS
There were several less well-known characteristics of the COW alliance datasets that
were consequences of both Singer and Small’s research goals and of the computer technology of
the time. Singer and Small were primarily interested in investigating the relationship between
alliances and the onset of inter-state war. Thus, no alliances were included which “were
consummated by nations while participating in war or within three months prior to such
participation, unless those alliances emerged from the war intact” (Singer and Small 1968, 262).
Beginning dates and ending dates of the alliances were also given only in terms of month and
year. The commitment type of the alliance was coded as “1” defense pact, “2” neutrality or
nonaggression pact, “3.” Though the general assumption was that type 1 alliances imposed a
2
greater degree of commitment than type 2, and that they both imposed greater commitments than
type 3 alliances, their numerical coding is more a function of the computing requirements than of
a ratio or ordinal ranking. As Singer and Small note, “While a Class I alliance obviously is more
serious than a Class II or a Class III, a Class III may be more serious than a Class II. In the
nineteenth century, a neutrality pact was generally a more serious commitment than an entente.
In the twentieth century, however, the entente seems to be a more serious commitment than the
nonaggression pact” (1968, 280 note 10). In other words, an agreement to consult may specify
positive commitments not often contained in the restrictive neutrality/non-aggression pacts.
Finally, though the journal articles presented the data in an alliance list format, the data
that was more generally released (by ICPSR for instance) was actually in the form of alliance
bonds. Singer and Small had a particular interest in dyadic alliance relationships and their
impact on war initiation; thus, only the highest level of alliance commitment between a pair of
states in a given year was coded. This forced multiple alliance commitments to be ignored, and
lower level agreements ended with the signing of a defense pact or other higher commitment.
Similarly, ententes signed while a defense pact was in force were not included.
These coding decisions were tied both to a specific research agenda and to the extant
computer technology. Therefore, subsequent versions of the data (for example, Sabrosky’s 1976
data set and Sarkees 1995 data set) began the process of removing these strictures and expanding
the data. The alliance data was kept in the list format and an attempt was made to add all
alliances, including those created during wartime and those reflecting simultaneous alliance
commitments. There was also an attempt to add greater specificity to the beginning and ending
dates of alliances. This process of revision makes the 3.0 version of the data reflect not only an
attempt to update the temporal domain of the data, but also a concerted effort to update some of
the coding procedures used in the construction of the original alliance data sets.
PROCEDURES USED TO IDENTIFY VERSION 3.0 ALLIANCE CASES
Defining Formal Alliances
An explicit focus on written agreements is probably the most significant change from
earlier coding methods. Though Singer and Small had relied primarily upon the written alliance
agreement in categorizing alliance commitments, they also supplemented this research with
interpretations by diplomatic historians, particularly if there were any ambiguities in the treaty
text (1966, 5 and 1968, 261). In Version 3.0 of the alliance data set, historical opinion is no
longer consulted. Instead, only written treaties that meet the Singer and Small definition are
included in the data set, with two important exceptions.
First, written treaties that do not pass the ratification process are not included. There
were several South American treaties during the 19th and early 20th centuries that failed to win
legislative approval following negotiations, and at least one treaty was eliminated because the
alliance negotiator intentionally failed to sign the final treaty (see Pribram 1920-21, for a
description of the latter treaty). Second, several alliances were identified as meeting the Singer
and Small definition, but the actual treaty text could not be located. For example, the terms of a
few recent alliances were confirmed by multiple press accounts, but the actual treaty texts have
not been deposited with the United Nations or otherwise released to the public. The texts for a
few 19th century alliances have not been reprinted, were never cataloged in the various treaty
collections, and should probably be considered lost. Alliance cases with no surviving treaty texts
that could be confirmed by at least two secondary sources are included in this data set.
3
Sources Used
The generation of the updated formal alliance data set began with the various data
sources that are currently available – the original Correlates of War data set and the various
independent updates. These data sources were augmented with new United Nations data and
several new anthologies that were released after the last revision of the Correlates of War data.
In addition, Lexis-Nexis, Keesings, and Facts on File were used for every year available (the
years vary according to each source) to update the 20th century alliances.
Secondary historical sources were used to collect background information on the duration
of each alliance (exact signature and abrogation or termination dates), and as mentioned above,
secondary sources were also used to identify the existence of a formal alliance when no treaty
texts could be identified. Once again emulating the Singer and Small data collection procedures,
secondary sources were chosen carefully to ensure global coverage during the entire time period.
All sources – both secondary and primary – used for this data set are listed in the bibliography of
this coding manual.
Alliance Sources and Avoiding Missed Alliances
Using a multiplicity of sources is a way to try to identify the entire list of alliances.
Unfortunately, it is not easy to avoid omissions in this type of research because alliances can
always exist that were never registered, were never included in anthologies, and were never
mentioned by historians. The prospect of these missing alliances is troubling, but great efforts
were taken to ensure that the data collection procedures gave an accurate representation of the
universe of alliances during the years since 1816.
As a reliability test of the methods used to collect these alliances, 20 state-year periods of
10 years were chosen randomly and were then independently investigated by several students not
involved in the original coding of alliances. These in-depth investigations also focused on
secondary sources not originally used in the construction of the data set. In all but one of these
20 investigations, the alliance portfolio produced by these more intense investigations matched
the original alliance portfolio. In the only aberrant investigation, a single alliance was added to
the current data set. Given these reliability results, one can be fairly confident that the prospects
for Type I errors in this data set are low. However, if the data user detects errors of omission (or
any other errors), please contact the data set author.
System Membership
System Membership affects the alliance data in several ways. Alliances created by one
system member with one or more extra-systemic groups are excluded from this data set. If one
of these groups gains system membership during the tenure of the alliance, then the alliance
begins for that state on the date of entry into the international state system. These left-censored
cases are noted by a separate “start notes” variable. When a state loses system membership –
through civil war, loss in war, or political union – the alliance ceases to exist for that state. If
two or more system members are no longer present in the alliance, then the entire alliance is
coded as ending. Alliance cases that end due to Correlates of War System Membership rules
(right-censored cases) are noted in the data set by a separate “end notes” variable.
4
Alliance Terminations
Unfortunately, termination dates for alliances are not as easy to code. Many treaty texts
argue that the commitments will last “in perpetuity” or will be renewed every 10 or 20 years
after the date of signature, provided both states agree. Although original alliances are often
registered with international bodies (at least since the League of Nations), renewals are not often
registered, and terminations rarely are. Given the complexity of determining when an alliance
relationship ends, a clear set of procedures was developed that provided for greater consistency
of application. First, the coding of the termination dates began with the text of the treaty and its
stated end date. Second, primary and secondary sources were consulted around this renewal time
period to determine if a renewal took place. Third, primary and secondary sources were
examined to determine if abrogation could have occurred prior to the expected end of the
alliance. Typical events include certain levels of conflict like intense crises or wars and regime
changes such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union and its satellite states beginning in the late
1980s. If it is clear that the treaty was abrogated, the termination date for a formal alliance then
becomes the stated end date, given renewals, adjusted for possible abrogation by one or more
members.
VARIABLES INCLUDED IN VERSION 3.0 OF THE DATA SET
Listed below are the descriptions of the variables included in the Version 3.0 release of
the Correlates of War Formal Interstate Alliance Treaty Data Set, 1816 to 2000. The data set is
organized by alliance member, so each alliance contains at least two member state entries.
Multilateral alliances have entries for each member state and can include multiple entries for a
member state if it suffers loss of system membership or leaves and then re-enters the alliance.
The alliance number remains the same as states enter and leave an alliance unless the purpose
behind the alliance changes. The variables are listed in the order that they appear in the data set.
ALLYNUM – The assigned number for each alliance case. Note that this number is new in the
v3.0 data, and does not correspond to alliance numbering in prior versions of the data set.
CCODE – The Correlates of War System Membership Code for the member state.
STATENM – The state name that corresponds to each System Membership Code number; note
that several states change names through the data set even though their CCODE remains
constant (“Prussia” becomes “Germany” and “Russia” becomes “USSR” for example).
STARTDAY – The day the alliance commitment began for the member state.
STARTMON – The month the alliance commitment began for the member state.
STARTYR – The year the alliance commitment began for the member state.
ENDDAY – The day the alliance commitment ended for the member state.
ENDMON – The month the alliance commitment ended for the member state.
ENDYR – The year the alliance commitment ended for the member state.
SSTYPE – The Singer and Small code that describes the type of alliance commitment
(1=defense; 2=neutrality or non-aggression; and 3=entente)
STCENS – A “1” in this column indicates a left-censored case. The alliance commitment for the
member state actually began before its inclusion in the Correlates of War System
Membership Data Set.
5
ENDCENS – A “1” in this column indicates a right-censored case. The alliance commitment for
the member state most likely ended after its removal from the Correlates of War System
Membership Data Set. A “2” in this column indicates that the alliance is still active as of
December 31, 2000. These ongoing alliances also have ENDDAY and ENDMON
designations of “99” and ENDYR designations of “9999”.
VERSION – The current version number of the data set release.
Since all Correlates of War data sets must conform to the same system membership data, the
STCENS and ENDCENS variables are included to provide additional information regarding the
actual alliance commitments when discrepancies exist. Left-censoring occurs when alliance
members sign commitments prior to their entry into the system. Right-censoring occurs when
either two states unify (for example, Egypt and Syria become the United Arab Republic) or the
alliance commitment is believed to exist beyond the last date of system membership; not labeled
as censored data are the cases where states lose membership due to civil or interstate war.
NOTES ON IMPORTANT CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS CORRELATES OF WAR
FORMAL INTERSTATE ALLIANCE DATA SETS
The most significant changes made from the original Singer and Small (1968) formal
interstate alliance data are the addition of over 75 alliances from 1965 to 2000 and the addition
of numerous alliance cases between 1816 and 1965 that were not in the original data set.
Differences in both temporal span and the number of secondary and even primary sources that
have become available since the original data collection accounts for the first two sets of
changes, but further explanation is probably needed regarding the exclusion of several cases
originally labeled as alliances.
As mentioned above, one of the most distinguishing characteristics of the 3.0 Version is
its emphasis on formal treaty commitments. This focus upon the treaties, rather than the
diplomatic understanding of alliances, has led to the exclusion of 18 cases from the Singer and
Small original data sets and 4 from the Sabrosky update (most of these cases were listed as
ententes in the original data sets). For example, a defense pact signed by Modena, Parma, and
Tuscany in 1859 was originally coded based upon secondary information, and no treaty text can
be found for this alliance. More recent secondary scholarship indicates that no alliance
commitments were made in this agreement, and the treaty is therefore excluded from the data set.
Similarly, six pre-World War I ententes were also originally coded based upon secondary
sources, but in this case treaty texts do exist and consideration of the treaty texts suggests that the
agreements do not constitute the levels of commitment that historians have considered them to
be. The Russo-Japanese agreement of 1896 specified the stationing of troops on the Korean
Peninsula. While this represented an important agreement over policy for these two states, the
treaty text does not include language that requires consultations in the event of international
crisis situations. Five other agreements are similar. The Austro-Russian agreement of 1897
specifies settlement of issues in the Balkans; the Entente Cordiale (Britain and France in 1904)
settled policy regarding Morocco; the Franco-Japanese agreement in June of 1907 settled policy
in China and Indochina; the Russo-Japanese agreement separated Inner and Outer Mongolia one
month later; and Britain and Russia concluded agreements on Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet in
August of 1907. All of these agreements have important implications for the eventual alignment
6
of British and French policy and made the Germans nervous regarding a possible “encirclement”,
but none of the treaty texts can be considered formal alliance commitments. Therefore, these
cases are excluded from this updated alliance data set. (See Gibler, 1997, for descriptions of
these agreements, and Kennedy, 1987, for a description of their effects on the international
system. Leeds, Ritter, Long, and Mitchell (2000) have also independently made the decision to
exclude these agreements from their coding scheme.)
Finally, the focus on written agreements forces more general changes in the nature of the
data set. In some cases, what historians would consider as one alliance is now broken down into
several component treaties. In other cases, what had been coded as separate alliances are now
considered continuations or renewals of existing treaties.
Listed below are the most notable exclusions from previous alliance data sets. A
frequently asked questions (or FAQ) section of the web release of the data set will include to
detailed answers to these and other changes from previous data sets. It is important to note that
the authors disagree about these and other coding decisions, with the primary point of contention
being the understanding of ententes. This version of the data has taken the more conservative
approach of excluding questionable cases, but it is anticipated that a discussion of these matters
will take place in subsequent publications.
7/1859 Modena, Parma, Tuscany
5/1873 Germany, Russia
6/1896 Japan, Russia
5/1897 Austria, Russia
12/1900 France, Italy
4/1904 Britain, France
6/1907 France, Japan
7/1907 Russia, Japan
8/1907 Britain, Russia
4/1927 Hungary, Italy
2/1933 Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Yugoslavia
6/1933 Britain, France, Germany, Italy
8/1940 United States, Canada
1/1942 The wartime United Nations
2/1946 Russia, Mongolia
11/1947 Bulgaria, Yugoslavia
12/1947 Albania, Bulgaria
1/1948 Bulgaria, Rumania
10/1955 Egypt, Saudi Arabia
9/1960 China, Guinea
8/1961 China, Ghana
2/1965 Senegal, Gambia
Type 1
Type 3
Type 3
Type 3
Type 3
Type 3
Type 3
Type 3
Type 3
Type 2
Type 3
Type 3
Type 3
Type 1
Type 1
Type 1
Type 1
Type 1
Type 1
Type 2
Type 2
Type 1
7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coding Manual Sources
Gibler, Douglas M., “Alliances that Never Balance: The Territorial Settlement Treaty," Conflict
Management and Peace Science, Volume 16, 1 (1996).
Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Random House, 1987.
Leeds, Brett Ashley, Jeffrey M. Ritter, Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, and Andrew G. Long. (2002).
Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815-1944. International Interactions 28: 237-260.
Russett, Bruce, J. David Singer, and Melvin Small. “National Political Units in the Twentieth
Century,” American Political Science Review, September 1968, LXII, No. 3, 932-951.
Singer, J. David,and Melvin Small (1966) "Formal Alliances, 1815-1939: A Quantitative
Description." Journal of Peace Research. 1966.
Singer, J. David, and Melvin Small. (1968). "Alliance Aggregation and the Onset of War, 18151945" in J. David Singer (ed) Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence, New
York: Free Press, 247-86.
Singer, J. David, and Melvin Small (1972). The Wages of War, 1816-1965: A Statistical
Handbook. New York: John Wiley.
Small, Melvin, and J. David Singer (1969) "Formal Alliances, 1816-1965: An Extension of the
Basic Data." Journal of Peace Research.
A List of Sources Used for Collecting the Correlates of War Formal Interstate Alliance
Data Set, 1816-2000.
Non-governmental Sources
Axelrod, Alan. (2000) American Treaties and Alliances. Washington, DC: Congressional
Quarterly Press.
Cooke, W. Henry and Edith P. Stickney, eds., Readings in European international relations since
1879. New York: Harper & Bros., 1931.
Davenport, F.G., European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States, 4 vols,
Washington, 1917-1937
d’Angeberg, Comte, Recueil des Traites, conventions…., Paris 1859
Degras, Jane Tabrisky, Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy. London, New York, Oxford
University Press, 1951-53.
Dmytryshyn, Basil, Imperial Russia. A Source Book, 1700-1917, Academic International Press.
8
Documents on German foreign policy, 1918-1945, Series D (1937-1941) vol. xiv, index.
Arlington, Va.: Open-Door Press, c1976
Grenville, John, ed., Major International Treaties, 1914-1973: History & Guide with Texts,
London: Metheun, 1974.
Grenville, John, ed., Major International Treaties, 1914-1945: History & Guide with Texts,
London: Metheun, 1987.
Grenville, J.A.S. and Bernard Wasserstein, eds., Major International Treaties Since1945: History
& Guide with Texts, London: Metheun, 1987.
Herslet’s Commercial Treaties, 31 vols., London 1840-1925
Hurewitz, Jacob, The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics, A Documentary Record,
Yale: New Haven, 1979.
Hurst, Michael, Key Treaties for the Great Powers, 1814-1914 St. Martins, 1972.
International Legal Materials, Washington, D.C.: American Society of International Law, [1962current]
Jones, F. C. , Hugh Borton and B. R. Pearn, Survey of International Affairs. The Far East, 19421946. London, New York, Oxford University Press, 1955.
Keesing’s Publications. Treaties and Alliances of the World. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons. 1968, 1974 and 1981.
Legum, Colin, Pan-Africanism: A Short Political Guide, 1962. New York, F.A. Praeger, 1965
MacMurray, John V. A., Treaties and agreements with and concerning China, 1894-1919: a
collection of state papers, private agreements, and other documents, in reference to the rights and
obligations of the Chinese Government in relation to foreign powers, and in reference to the
interrelation of those powers in respect to China, during the period from the Sino-Japanese War
to the conclusion of the World War of 1914-1919. New York: Oxford University Press, 1921.
Martens, F.F., Recueil des traites et conventions conclus par la Russie avec les puissances
etrangeres…. St. Petersburg, 1874-1909
Millar, T.B. Current International Treaties. New York: New York University Press. 1984.
Mowat, R.B., Select Treaties and Documents 1815-1916, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916
Nada, Narciso , Le Relazioni Diplomatiche Fra L'Austria e il Regno di Sardegna
9
Neumann, L. F. von, Recueil des raites et Conventions conclus par l’Autriche avec les
puissances etrangeres depuis 1763 jusqu’a nos jours, 6 vols., Leipzig, 1855-59.
Noradounghian, G.E., Recueil d’Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman, etc., 4 vols., Paris,
1897-1903
Parry, Clive. (ed.). Consolidated Treaty Series. Dobbs Ferry: Oceana, 1969-1986.
Pribram, A. F., Oesterreichische Staatsvertrage, England, 2 vols. Innsbruck and Vienna, 19071913.
Rengger, Nicholas, ed. Treaties and Alliances of the World. Harlow, UK: The Longman Group.
1990.
Rengger, Nicholas, ed. Treaties and Alliances of the World. London: Cartermill Publishing.
1995.
Rohn, Peter H. (ed.). World Treaty Index. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1983. 5 vol.
von Sybel, Heinrich, The founding of the German empire by William I. Based chiefly upon
Prussian state documents; Tr. by Marshall Livingston Perrin. Assisted by Gamaliel Bradford, jr.
New York, T. Y. Crowell & co. [1890-98]
Watt, D. C., ed., Documents on international affairs: 1961. with the assistance of John Major, et
al., London; New York: Published for the Royal Institute of International Affairs by Oxford
University Press, 1965.
Weill, Herman N., ed., European diplomatic history; documents and interpretations, 1815-1914.
New York, Exposition Press [1972]
Governmental and Inter-Governmental Sources
Australian Treaty Series, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/
British and Foreign State Papers, London: H.M.S.O., vols. 1-170.
British Parliamentary Papers, London: H.M.S.O.
British war blue book. Miscellaneous no. 9 (1939) Documents concerning German-Polish
relations and the outbreak of hostilities between Great Britain and Germany on September 3,
1939. Presented by the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs to Parliament by command of His
Majesty.
Bulgarian State Papers. Sofia, Bulgaria.
de Clercq, A., Recueil de traits de la France publie sous les auspice de S.E.M. Drouyn de Lhuys,
minister des affaires etrangeres, Paris 1864-1907
10
Documents diplomatiques belges, 1920-1940. Bruxelles, Palais des acad魩es, 1964-66.
Dokumente zur Aussenpolitik der Deutschen Demokratischen Republic. East German State
Papers.
French yellow book; diplomatic documents (1938-1939) Papers relative to the events and
negotiations which preceded the opening of hostilities between Germany on the one hand, and
Poland, Great Britain and France on the other. New York, Pub. by the authority of the French
government, Reynal & Hitchcock [c1940]
League of Arab States, http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague/index_en.jsp
League of Nations. Treaty Series. 1919-1947.Geneva: League of Nations.
Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India,
http://meadev.nic.in/economy/ibta/mainpg.htm
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, www.nato.int
Organization of American States, www.oas.org
Peking Review, Official Publication of Communist Party of China. English edition.
State Documents of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
TASS, Official News Agency of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. English edition.
United Nations. Treaty Series: Treaties and International Agreements Registered or Filed and
Recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations. Vol. 1-, 1946/1947-. New York: UN.
United States State Department, http://www.state.gov/s/l/
Tratados Publicos y Acuerdos Internacionales de Venezuela, Venezuelan State Papers.
11