In Jerusalem, Ireland, Kosovo, and Kashmir, indivisible territory underlies much of international conflict+ I argue whether or not territory appears indivisible depends on how actors legitimate their claims to territory during negotiations+ Although actors choose their legitimations strategically, in order to gain a political advantage at the bargaining table, legitimation strategies have unintended structural consequences: by resonating with some actors and not others, legitimations either build ties between coalitions and allow each side to recognize the legitimacy of each other's claims, or else lock actors into bargaining positions where they are unable to recognize the legitimacy of their opponent's demands+ When the latter happens, actors come to negotiations with incompatible claims, constructing the territory as indivis-ible+ I apply this legitimation theory to Ulster, arguing this territory's indivisibility was not inevitable, but a product of actors' legitimation strategies as they battled for support over the issue of Ireland's right to self-rule+ Indivisible territory is all too frequent in international politics+ 1 In Jerusalem, many Israelis "insist that a united Jerusalem will be the eternal capital of the Jewish state," whereas Palestinians contend that any deal excluding sovereignty over the city is "an unacceptable compromise + + + @that# will make their blood boil+" 2 India For comments on this article, I thank