The Internationalization of Ethnic Conflict: State, Society, and Synthesis

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to identify a framework for understanding the internationalization of ethnic conflict. We examine three approaches that purport to explain escalation—namely extension, interaction, and transformation—and emphasize the fact that each theory by itself lacks full explanatory power. Synthesis that focuses on factors from state and society, which shape the decision to become involved in ethnic strife is essential. Examination of the preceding factors reveals that institutional configurations and ethnic composition indeed do limit future options available to states and influence the distribution of capabilities among leaders of groups. The main conclusion of this essay is that ethnic diversity in a society and high constraint on state action are optimal conditions for overcoming insecurity.

The Impact of Population Heterogeneity and Income Inequality on Homicide Rates

“…Thus, immigration does not necessarily intensify crime problems (Graif & Sampson, 2009). Given the same token, some nations such as Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovenia experienced culture and political conflicts among different ethnic groups (Carment et al, 2009). However, their ethnic diversity did not automatically lead to ethnic inequality.…”

“…Thus, a likelihood of cultural conflict increases when a society becomes more heterogeneous. In addition to that, population diversity may lead to political conflicts among various ethnic groups to gain hegemony of a nation, including a public policy benefit such as welfare (Alesina et al, 2003;Carment, James, & Taydas, 2009;Cole & Gramajo, 2009;Unnever & Cullen, 2010).…”

“…Ethnic minority groups are likely to experience hopelessness and frustration because of their economic disadvantages. The frustration resulting from relative deprivation leads to aggression (J. R. Blau & Blau, 1982;Carment et al, 2009). However, minority members do not possess the power to overthrow the majority.…”

Conceptualization of internationalized intrastate conflict: moving beyond the role of external state-based actors

“…Кроме того, согласно результатам некоторых исследований, принятие решения о вмешательстве во внутригосударственный конфликт со стороны государства-субъекта во многом определяется сочетанием таких его характеристик, как институциональная конфигурация и этнический состав. При этом из всех возможных комбинаций этническое многообразие вкупе с жесткими институциональными ограничениями на выработку государственной политики оказывает наибольший сдерживающий эффект на принятие решения о вмешательстве во внутренние конфликты других государств [14]. Дальнейшее изучение взаимосвязи этнического состава государства-субъекта и вероятности интервенции показало, что этнически гетерогенные государства с доминантной этнической группой более склонны к вмешательству во внутренние этнические конфликты в других странах, чем этнически гомогенные или этнически гетерогенные государства без доминантной группы [15].…”

Interreligious and intercultural education for dialogue, peace and social cohesion

“…And while it is true that the root causes of conflict are usually complex and consist of numerous factors, such as politics, economics, poverty and/ or class divisions, it is also true that they often come to the fore along ethnic or religious lines (Carment et al 2009). In fact, since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, several scholars have argued that the majority of conflicts are identity-based clashes of ethnicities, cultures and/or religions (Abu-Nimer 2001;Love 2006;Fox 2004;Seul 1999).…”