IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v23y2006i4p309-328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Domestic-Level Territorial Disputes: Conflict Management via Secession

Author

Listed:
  • Jaroslav Tir

    (Department of International Affairs The University of Georgia Athens, Georgia, USA, tir@uga.edu)

Abstract

A rarely explored subset of territorial disputes is that of domestic-level territorial disputes. In such a dispute, a substate group disagrees with the country's central government over whether the government should have sovereign control over the entire territory of the state; that is, the dissatisfied group is demanding independence. If the independence-minded group prevails, new boundaries and states are created through a territorial change known as secession. This study explores secession's track record (i.e., how often secessions have been successful in resolving the underlying territorial disputes) and reasons why some secessions are followed by militarized conflict over the new boundary. The results—based on an examination of the aftermath of all twentieth century secessions and the application of more sensitive criteria than those used in prior research—reveal that while most secessions leave unresolved territorial disputes in their wake, these disputes are not particularly prone to escalate into militarized confrontations. Moreover, intangibly (i.e., ethnically) based disagreements over the new boundary play a much greater role in militarized conflict onset than do tangibly (i.e., economically or strategically) based territorial disputes. Finally, contrary to expectations from the ethnic secession literature, peaceful secessions significantly decrease the likelihood that the new boundary will be contested militarily.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaroslav Tir, 2006. "Domestic-Level Territorial Disputes: Conflict Management via Secession," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(4), pages 309-328, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:23:y:2006:i:4:p:309-328
    DOI: 10.1080/07388940600972651
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/07388940600972651
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07388940600972651?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul D. Senese, 2005. "Territory, Contiguity, and International Conflict: Assessing a New Joint Explanation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 769-779, October.
    2. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    3. Jaroslav Tir, 2002. "Letting Secessionists Have Their Way: Can Partitions Help End and Prevent Ethnic Conflicts?," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 261-292, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew Fuhrmann & Jaroslav Tir, 2009. "Territorial Dimensions of Enduring Internal Rivalries," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(4), pages 307-329, September.
    2. Andrew P. Owsiak, 2019. "Foundations for integrating the democratic and territorial peace arguments," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(1), pages 63-87, January.
    3. Thorin M. Wright & Toby J. Rider, 2014. "Disputed territory, defensive alliances and conflict initiation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(2), pages 119-144, April.
    4. Sam R. Bell, 2017. "Power, territory, and interstate conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 160-175, March.
    5. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Clayton L. Thyne, 2010. "Contentious Issues as Opportunities for Diversionary Behavior," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(5), pages 461-485, November.
    6. Jaroslav Tir, 2005. "Keeping the Peace after Secession," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 713-741, October.
    7. Simon Fink, 2013. "Policy Convergence with or without the European Union: The Interaction of Policy Success, EU Membership and Policy Convergence," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 631-648, July.
    8. Cali Mortenson Ellis & Michael C. Horowitz & Allan C. Stam, 2015. "Introducing the LEAD Data Set," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 718-741, August.
    9. Han Dorussen & Hugh Ward, 2011. "Disaggregated Trade Flows and International Conflict," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 25, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. William J. Dixon & Paul D. Senese, 2002. "Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(4), pages 547-571, August.
    11. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2006. "Power Positions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(1), pages 3-27, February.
    12. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    13. Langlotz, Sarah & Potrafke, Niklas, 2019. "Does development aid increase military expenditure?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 735-757.
    14. Daniel Albalate & Germà Bel & Ferran A. Mazaira‐Font, 2022. "Geography and regional economic growth: The high cost of deviating from nature," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 360-388, March.
    15. William D. Berry & Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt & Justin Esarey, 2010. "Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 248-266, January.
    16. Choong-Nam Kang, 2017. "Capability revisited: Ally’s capability and dispute initiation1," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(5), pages 546-571, September.
    17. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2012. "War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 257-278, July.
    18. Lingyu Lu & Cameron G. Thies, 2010. "Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(4), pages 347-368, September.
    19. Michael Horowitz & Rose McDermott & Allan C. Stam, 2005. "Leader Age, Regime Type, and Violent International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 661-685, October.
    20. Kyle Haynes, 2017. "Diversionary conflict: Demonizing enemies or demonstrating competence?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(4), pages 337-358, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:23:y:2006:i:4:p:309-328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.