The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict

Posen, Barry R.

doi:10.2307/j.ctv36zq9w.10

Cited by 179 publications

(247 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

237

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The extant anti-partition literature (e.g., Horowitz, 1985;Rothchild, 1997;Kumar, 1997;Brown, 1993;Posen, 1993;Hachey, 1972;Fraser, 1984;de Silva and May, 1991;McGarry and O'Leary, 1993;Sambanis, 2000) uses occurrence of conflict as a signal of partition's failure. Such a standard seems reasonable as the proponents of partition (e.g., Mearsheimer, 1993Mearsheimer, , 1998Mearsheimer and Van Evera, 1995Kaufmann, 1996Kaufmann, , 1998 claim that it can prevent future violent conflict.…”

Section: Judging Partition's Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concerns that the newly formed state and its former master may try to redraw the borders by force and otherwise endure tense relations on and beyond the brink of conflict are also echoed by Brown (1993) and Posen (1993). Examples of other writings opposing partition include Hachey (1972), Fraser (1984, de Silva andMay (1991), andO'Leary (1993).…”

Section: Partition As a Non-solution For Ethnic Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Letting Secessionists Have Their Way: Can Partitions Help End and Prevent Ethnic Conflicts?

Tir

2002

International Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines partition's success in ending old and preventing new ethnic conflicts. Opponents of partition often claim that partition only invites (further) conflict by its inability to divide existing multiethnic countries in ways satisfying to all concerned ethnic groups. In contrast, proponents of partition argue that partition is the only ethnic conflict solution that provides ethnic separation, an element that is key if conflict prevention is of concern. By separating the belligerent groups, partition provides safety and a decrease in the need for interaction between groups that do not get along. When domestic and international violence is considered, partition's consequences largely depend on the timing of partition. In cases of partitions resulting from ethnic secessionist conflicts, there is a widespread continuation of serious domestic conflict but its frequency does decrease significantly, to a level that can be considered "normal." Internationally, dyads made up of violently partitioned countries avoid militarized conflict in more than one-third of the cases. In cases of peaceful (i.e., preventative) ethnic partitions, domestic conflict starts up in about half of the cases, but despite the significant increase in its frequency, the frequency remains "normal." Internationally, dyads made up of peacefully partitioned countries avoid militarized conflict almost completely. Accordingly, peaceful ethnic partitions produce dyads that are significantly less likely to engage in militarized conflicts and wars than dyads emerging from violent ethnic partitions. Contrary to some expectations, partitions do not create overwhelmingly nondemocratic countries; however, in cases of violent ethnic secessions, democratic institutions do not exhibit significant pacifying effect on subsequent domestic conflict. Important caveats notwith-

show abstract

Section: Judging Partition's Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Partition As a Non-solution For Ethnic Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Letting Secessionists Have Their Way: Can Partitions Help End and Prevent Ethnic Conflicts?

Tir

2002

International Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Booth and Wheeler have recently made a book-length plea for the enduring relevance of the concept (Booth and Wheeler 2008) and its relevance in cases of state failure, particularly in contemporary ethnic conflicts, is well documented (Posen 1993;Fearon and Laitin 1996;Kaufman 1996;Snyder and Jervis 1999;Kasfir 2004). Wars in which both sides are justified in using force are analytically possible.…”

Section: Adjudication Of Just Causes Of Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggression and the symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law

Kalmanovitz

2015

Int Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent scholarship in just war theory has challenged the principle of symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This revisionist work, which is increasingly dominating the field of contemporary war ethics, rejects the idea that the rules of conduct of war (jus in bello) should be agnostic about the justice of the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum). Just wars are perceived to be inherently at odds with the principle of symmetrical application of IHL, which appears to create a hard choice between justice and legality. I show that this challenge to IHL is misplaced. It derives from a widespread view among just war theorists according to which only one side in a just war can be justified in using force. By looking closely at the nature of adjudication of just causes of war, I show that there can be cases of war in which both sides are justified in using force, and cases in which, though not objectively justified, both sides may be excused for fighting. On the basis of this understanding of jus ad bellum, I argue that the principle of symmetrical application of IHL in fact best reflects the uncertainty and complexity that should characterize the practical doctrine of jus ad bellum.

show abstract

“…Another macroeconomic statistical control of actual economic conditions in Primorskii is WAGEIX (officially estimated purchasing power of wages by city and county, 1999 as percent of 1991). Second, the model takes into account evidence from previous research suggesting that the prospect of changing ethnic balances under weak government gives rise to 'fearproducing environments' associated with security dilemma (Jervis, 1978;Posen, 1993;Van Evera, 1995;Snyder & Jervis, 1999) and concomitant 'causal ambiguity' about the 'other's' intentions (Figueiredo & Weingast, 1999). This problem speaks to fears of Russians the author met in the Far East, who argued that gradual 'Sinification' (kitaizatsiia) of Primorskii would ostensibly result in claims for ethnic autonomy and 'reunification' with China (for a similar scenario, see Yergin & Gusthafson, 1993).…”

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%