IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v10y2022i4p759-775_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Belief in territorial indivisibility and public preferences for dispute resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Fang, Songying
  • Li, Xiaojun
  • Tago, Atsushi
  • Chiba, Daina

Abstract

This study investigates how individuals may develop more or less strong beliefs in the indivisibility of a disputed territory and how such beliefs may influence their policy preferences toward resolving the dispute. Using a survey experiment in Japan, we find that historical ownership strengthens respondents’ beliefs in territorial indivisibility. Furthermore, those who hold the strongest belief in territorial indivisibility are much less likely to support bilateral negotiation and more likely to support contentious policies, including but not limited to military actions. Finally, we explore external validity of the findings by analyzing respondents who had a real dispute in mind during the survey with China, South Korea, and Russia, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Fang, Songying & Li, Xiaojun & Tago, Atsushi & Chiba, Daina, 2022. "Belief in territorial indivisibility and public preferences for dispute resolution," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 759-775, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:759-775_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S204984702200019X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:pscirm:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:759-775_5. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    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.