Abstract:Interstate conflicts involving religion are commonly argued to be more severe and more protracted than other forms of conflict. Although various arguments have sought to explain religion's apparent contributions to global violence, few consider the foreign policy goals over which religious actors actually fight. This article does so by examining whether religiously-exclusive states tend to militarize interstate territorial disputes (MIDs) over issues of strategic material or identity salience. Insofar as relig… Show more
“…The questions of conflict management and mediation of ethnic or religious disputes have often centered upon the ability of states to divide the territory in question in such a way that satisfies disputants concerned with questions of morality or justice. Much of the difficulty with partition derives not just from the importance of avoiding future ethnic conflict and danger to those placed in the “other” group's state, but also from the perceptions of the territory under dispute as “indivisible” (Goddard, 2006; Hassner, 2003; Zellman & Fox, 2020). Unlike economic concerns, where equitable agreements and compromises can be reached by dividing whatever is disputed between the disputants, disputes over ethnicity or religion cannot be so easily divided.…”
Section: Identity and Territorial Conflictmentioning
Territorial 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 negotiationsmuch of which is driven by conquest, violence, and unilateral action.
“…The questions of conflict management and mediation of ethnic or religious disputes have often centered upon the ability of states to divide the territory in question in such a way that satisfies disputants concerned with questions of morality or justice. Much of the difficulty with partition derives not just from the importance of avoiding future ethnic conflict and danger to those placed in the “other” group's state, but also from the perceptions of the territory under dispute as “indivisible” (Goddard, 2006; Hassner, 2003; Zellman & Fox, 2020). Unlike economic concerns, where equitable agreements and compromises can be reached by dividing whatever is disputed between the disputants, disputes over ethnicity or religion cannot be so easily divided.…”
Section: Identity and Territorial Conflictmentioning
Territorial 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 negotiationsmuch of which is driven by conquest, violence, and unilateral action.
“…Gurr, 1993Gurr, , 2000; empirical studies show that states with more RF engage in less international conflict and experience less domestic conflict (e.g. Deitch, 2020;Zellman and Fox, 2020).…”
Religious freedom (RF) is important because it is posited to be a central element of liberal democracy and as having multiple additional benefits including increased security and economic prosperity. Yet, it is also a disputed concept and many liberal democracies restrict the freedoms of religious minorities. This study uses the Religion and State (RAS) dataset to examine the extent of RF in 183 countries based on six definitions of RF. The author examines whether religious minorities are restricted in a manner that the majority is not, regulation of the majority religion, and imposition of precepts of the majority religion on a country’s population. He finds that very few countries, including liberal democracies, meet any standard for RF, even when one allows for ‘loose’ standards where some violations of RF are allowed.
“… 8 For details on how the RASM dataset was collected and variable construction see Akbaba & Fox (2011), Fox, Finke & Mataic (2018), and the Religion and State project website at www.religionandstate.org. For a broader theoretical discussion of the impact and nature of these discrimination variables see Deitch (2020), Fox (2020), and Zellman & Fox (2020). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…org. For a broader theoretical discussion of the impact and nature of these discrimination variables seeDeitch (2020),Fox (2020), andZellman & Fox (2020).Mishali-Ram & Fox…”
This study asks whether governmental and societal discrimination against Muslim minorities explains the outflow of foreign fighters from non-Muslim-majority countries to Syria and Iraq. We use data from the ICSR, Soufan Group, Pokalova (2018), and RASM datasets to examine the connection between discrimination directed at Muslim minorities and the number of foreign fighters originating in a country. We apply grievance-based theory to examine whether minority-specific objective discrimination is behind the phenomenon. We find little evidence that discrimination increases the outflow of foreign fighters, but this outflow is higher from wealthier countries. The findings indicate that if grievances are a motivation for individuals to become foreign fighters, they are not connected to objective discrimination. This implies that at least some of the grievances relate to personal circumstances or that immigrant minorities are more likely to perceive inequality in wealthier countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.