Conflict settlement and identity in territorial claims

Abstract

AbstractTerritorial claims with an ethnic or identity component have been recognized as one of the most enduring and intractable sources of international conflict. Building on previous research which recognized the role of issue indivisibility in making compromise more difficult, this article focuses on the management of territorial claims with an identity or ethnic component. Utilizing the latest Issue Correlates of War (ICOW) dataset, the frequency, success, and qualitative content of negotiations over territorial claims are analyzed. The newest version of the ICOW dataset expands the spatial domain of Hensel and Mitchell's previous work that included the Americas and Western Europe, expanding this domain to include the entire world, and more closely examines the role of concessions in the negotiations process. The results support the contention that issue indivisibility hampers compromise behavior and negotiation success in identity‐based territorial claims. Negotiations are less likely to occur, but surprisingly, more likely to succeed. Successful agreements are also more likely to see major concessions and territorial change. Identity‐based claims are also less likely to end through compromise outcomes like negotiations, and more likely to terminate through unilateral action and violence. The results suggest that identity claims are punctuated by rare bouts of significant negotiations—much of which is driven by conquest, violence, and unilateral action.Related ArticlesAyelet, Harel‐Shalev. 2009. “Lingual and Educational Policy toward ‘Homeland Minorities’ in Deeply Divided Societies: India and Israel as Case Studies.” Politics & Policy 37(5): 951–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2009.00206.x.Hae, Kim. 2009. “The Complexities of Internal Conflict in the Third World: Beyond Ethnic and Religious Conflict.” Politics & Policy 37(2): 395–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2009.00177.x.Tusalem, Rollin F. 2015. “Ethnic Minority Governments, Democracy, and Human Rights.” Politics & Policy 43(4): 502–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12125.