Partitioning to Peace: Sovereignty, Demography, and Ethnic Civil Wars

Johnson, Carter

doi:10.1162/isec.2008.32.4.140

Cited by 29 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He says that the only time they will promote peace is when the separation of peoples is so complete as to eliminate the possibility that any lingering minority population could possibly threaten the minority, thereby eliminating the security dilemma. Carter Johnson (2006) offers compelling support for this proposition that complete partitions prevent war recurrence.…”

Section: Theorizing About Partitionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Historical, Tactical, and Strategic Lessons from the Partition of Cyprus

Lindley

2007

Int Studies Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article surveys the history of Cyprus's conflict and partition to derive historical, tactical, and strategic lessons about how the Cyprus problem should be resolved and about the value of partitions more generally. Cyprus is complex. Tensions between North and South are very low, in part because the partition has been a cause of peace. However, both sides remain pervaded by antagonistic and one-sided biases, histories, and myths. Moreover, almost every plausible solution, including the Annan Plan, that proposes to unite the island also incorporates the group-based and gridlock-prone characteristics of the conflict-generating 1960 constitution. A Cyprus solution solves little and creates risks. A better plan to create a permanent peace is to recognize a much smaller North, and bring all sides including Turkey into the European Union. This would create peace, give most Greek Cypriot refugees their land and homes back, and restore all freedoms throughout the island.

show abstract

Section: Theorizing About Partitionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Historical, Tactical, and Strategic Lessons from the Partition of Cyprus

Lindley

2007

Int Studies Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When advocates of partitionattempt to prove that the theory of partition is valid, they refer to the cases of India-Pakistan and Cyprus as empirical evidence (Johnson 2008;Kaufmann 1999Kaufmann , 2007. These two cases seem to be consistent with the theory of partition.…”

Section: Reviewing the Theory Of Partitionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The core argument for partition is that when intense ethnic conflict occurs, the separation of rival groups is the only solution and attempts to establish an intermingled community of these groups can lead to further violence (Downes 2006;Johnson 2008;Kaufmann 1996Kaufmann , 1999. The theory of partition is based on two argumentsregarding ethnic conflict.…”

Section: Reviewing the Theory Of Partitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While advocates of partition maintain that multi-ethnic settlements run a greater risk of the resumption of ethnic war than partition (Johnson 2008;Downes 2006, 51), there are still controversies over this argument (Horowitz & Weisiger 2009;Sambanis & Schulhofer-Wohl 2009). Therefore it is not reasonable to eliminate peace-building approaches through federalism/powersharing and reconciliation as a solution to a postwar state.…”

Section: Case By Casementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Partition and Conflict Transformation in India-Pakistan and Cyprus

Suzuki¹

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that partition -a peacebuilding approach in a post-conflict society -can lead to the transformation of intrastate conflict to interstate conflict, thereby providing a helpful insight for further comparison of partition with multi-ethnic settlements such as federalism/powersharing and reconciliation. While advocates of partition maintain that intrastate conflict caused by a security dilemma between ethnic groups can be settled only by partition, this article argues that partition could cause the transformation of conflict rather than settling it. The cases of India-Pakistan and Cyprus provide the empirical evidence. The partition of India and Pakistan transformed intrastate conflict within India into interstate conflict between India and Pakistan including nuclear competition. The partition of Cyprus contributed to interstate conflict between Greece and Turkey. Therefore, this article concludes that the transformation of conflict reduces the value of partition, and that it is necessary to take this point into consideration when partition is compared with alternatives such as federalism/powersharing and reconciliation.

show abstract

“… 38. See, for example, Huth 1996; Toft 2003; Kaufmann 1998; Johnson 2008; Saideman and Ayers 2008; Weidmann 2009; and Miller 2007. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unequal Ground: Homelands and Conflict

Shelef¹

2015

Int Org

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there is a deep and wide consensus that international conflict over territory is especially common and destructive, there is less agreement over what it is about territory that leads to these outcomes. Understanding the role of territory in international conflict requires complementing realist and materialist understandings of the value of territory with one grounded in the constructivist theories that dominate studies of nationalism and geography. Doing so recognizes that homeland territoriality, because it raises the value of a specific territory and provides an imperative to establish sovereignty over it, plays a distinctive role in driving international conflict. This article presents a systematic, replicable operationalization of the homeland status of territory that, because it is consistent with constructivist theories of nationalism, can be used to integrate constructivist understandings of the role of territory into quantitative studies of territorial conflict. This measure is then used to test the implication that the loss of subjectively defined homeland territory increases the likelihood of international conflict relative to the loss of nonhomeland territory. The findings that dividing homelands is especially likely to lead to conflict are corroborated by a second novel measure of the homeland status of territory that is based on the identification of co-ethnics in a territory before the border was drawn.Although there is wide agreement that conflict over territory is especially common and destructive, there is less consensus about why that is the case. 1 Understanding the role of territory in international conflict requires complementing realist and materialist understandings of the value of territory with one grounded in the constructivist theories that dominate studies of nationalism and geography. These theories suggest that homeland territoriality, because it raises the value of a specific territory and provides an imperative to establish sovereignty over it, plays a distinctive role in driving international conflict. This article integrates constructivist understandings of the role of territory into quantitative studies of territorial conflict by presenting a systematic, replicable operationalization of the homeland status of territory that is consistent with constructivist theories of nationalism. This measure is then used to test

show abstract

Partitioning to Peace: Sovereignty, Demography, and Ethnic Civil Wars

Cited by 29 publications

References 31 publications

Historical, Tactical, and Strategic Lessons from the Partition of Cyprus

Historical, Tactical, and Strategic Lessons from the Partition of Cyprus

Partition and Conflict Transformation in India-Pakistan and Cyprus

Unequal Ground: Homelands and Conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About