IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v101y2007i04p677-691_07.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partition as a Solution to Wars of Nationalism: The Importance of Institutions

Author

Listed:
  • CHAPMAN, THOMAS
  • ROEDER, PHILIP G.

Abstract

Civil war settlements create institutional arrangements that in turn shape postsettlement politics among the parties to the previous conflict. Following civil wars that involve competing nation-state projects, partition is more likely than alternative institutional arrangements—specifically, unitarism, de facto separation, and autonomy arrangements—to preserve the peace and facilitate democratization. A theory of domestic political institutions as a constraint on reescalation of conflict explains this unexpected relationship through four intermediate effects—specifically, the likelihood that each institutional arrangement will reinforce incompatible national identities, focus the pursuit of greed and grievance on a single zero-sum conflict over the allocation of decision rights, empower the parties to the previous conflict with multiple escalatory options, and foster incompatible expectations of victory. The theory's predictions stand up under statistical tests that use four alternative datasets.

Suggested Citation

  • Chapman, Thomas & Roeder, Philip G., 2007. "Partition as a Solution to Wars of Nationalism: The Importance of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(4), pages 677-691, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:101:y:2007:i:04:p:677-691_07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055407070438/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefan Wolff & Simona Ross & Asbjorn Wee, 2020. "Subnational Governance and Conflict," World Bank Publications - Reports 34436, The World Bank Group.
    2. Jha, Saumitra & Wilkinson, Steven, 2012. "Veterans, Organizational Skill and Ethnic Cleansing: Evidence from the Partition of South Asia," Research Papers 2092, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Mehmet Gurses & Nicolas Rost, 2013. "Sustaining the peace after ethnic civil wars," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(5), pages 469-491, November.
    4. Matthew Nanes, 2020. "Police integration and support for anti-government violence in divided societies: Evidence from Iraq," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(2), pages 329-343, March.
    5. Zsuzsa Csergő & Philippe Roseberry & Stefan Wolff, 2017. "Institutional Outcomes of Territorial Contestation: Lessons from Post-Communist Europe, 1989–2012," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 47(4), pages 491-521.
    6. Maekawa Wakako, 2021. "Strategic Territorial Power-Sharing and Multi-Party Bargaining in Civil Wars," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 27(1), pages 91-117, February.
    7. Nicholas Sambanis & Micha Germann & Andreas Schädel, 2018. "SDM: A New Data Set on Self-determination Movements with an Application to the Reputational Theory of Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(3), pages 656-686, March.
    8. Nadav G. Shelef & Yael Zeira, 2017. "Recognition Matters!," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(3), pages 537-563, March.

    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:apsrev:v:101:y:2007:i:04:p:677-691_07. 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/psr .

    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.