How Homelands Change

Abstract

Under what conditions do nations give up parts of their national homeland? This article answers this question using novel data that traces systematically the inclusion of lost homeland territory in discursive definitions of the homeland for all ethnic nationalist homelands truncated between 1945 and 1996. A survival analysis of the continued homeland status of lost lands shows that longer-lasting democracies are significantly less likely to continue to include lost lands within the homeland’s scope, even after controlling for other factors thought to shape the inclusion of territory in the homeland. Since the desire for the control of territory is at the heart of much international conflict, understanding the conditions under which the scope of that territory is redefined contributes to addressing an especially refractory aspect of international politics.

How do international borders affect conflict processes? Evidence from the end of Mandate Palestine

“…Rebels that are too weak to expand their territorial control will be restrained by material, not normative, factors. While the contours of the homeland may limit the territorial ambitions of secessionist groups, those contours are endogenous to political and material factors and may shrink or expand based on the strength of the rebel group (Shelef, 2020). Generally, my argument applies more to secessionist groups than revolutionary rebel groups, since international legitimacy and territorial control both facilitate international recognition (the main goal of secessionists).…”

Beyond belief: How religion fosters self‐determination

“…Second, we know from international territorial conflicts that the extent of the territory that group members identify as the homeland might vary over time (cf. Shelef, 2020). This variation in homeland definition might be a function of the contestation processes with the government, or a result of other incentive structures, such as resource availability.…”