Which Land Is Our Land? Domestic Politics and Change in the Territorial Claims of Stateless Nationalist Movements

Mylonas, Harris; Shelef, Nadav G.

doi:10.1080/09636412.2014.964996

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In yet another setting, Goddard (2010) demonstrated that the construction of territory as part of the homeland can be the product of a movement's political dependence on a hawkish constituency rather than being inherent in either the land or the movement. Shelef (2010) showed that short-term modulations in territorial claims can generate analogous political "lock-in" effects that explain change in the opposite direction (see also Mylonas and Shelef 2014).…”

Section: Homelands and Evolutionary Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Homelands Change

Shelef

2019

Journal of Conflict Resolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Homelands and Evolutionary Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Homelands Change

Shelef

2019

Journal of Conflict Resolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The notion of 'indivisible territory', which is commonly accepted as a 'variable' that is affected by domestic, cultural, and strategic considerations, has been studied in depth by scholars such as Lustick (1993), Toft (2003), Hassner (2009), and Goddard (2010). Similarly, Shelef (2016) has explored the construction of notions of 'homeland' and how such constructions affect patterns of conflict between states, while Mylonas and Shelef (2014) have explained variation in territorial claims made by stateless nationalist movements. By contrast, scholars such as Zacher (2001), Fazal (2007), and Atzili (2012) emphasized the construction of the territorial order at the interstate level, pointing towards the impacts of the so-called territorial integrity (or border fixity) norm on patterns of interstate and intrastate conflict.…”

Section: Palabras Clavesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For some of the mechanism through which such dynamic could work, see Darden and Mylonas (2016) and Gibler (2014) 13. Mylonas and Shelef (2014) propose such an argument in the context of the study of stateless nationalist movements. Atzili and Kantel (2015) apply it to the study of shifting West German territorial concepts of their state.…”

Section: Disclosure Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Territorial designs and international politics: the diverging constitution of space and boundaries

Atzili

Kadercan

2017

Territory, Politics, Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Territorial designs and international politics: the diverging constitution of space and boundaries. Territory, Politics, Governance. The debate about the role and direction of territory and territorialityespecially with respect to the politically and socially constructed nature of territoryhas been evident within political geography and political science, as well as in other disciplines, for some time. Interdisciplinary interaction over the study of territory, however, has so far been less than impressive. Aiming to enhance our understanding of the place of territory in international relations, broadly defined, and to bridge disciplinary divides, this paper introduces the concept of 'territorial designs'. Territorial designs pertain to the delineation of the external boundaries, to the constitution of the society within these boundaries, and to the interaction between delineation and constitution. It is a process by which elites, in interaction with their own society and their external environment, intentionally and systematically constitute and institutionalize territoriality, and hence also territory. Territorial designs framework, as the papers in this volume collectively highlight, sheds a light on four key areas: the strategic logic and interaction behind different territorial systems; the unintended consequences of such designs; the tensions between regional/ local territorial arrangements and global ones; and the roles that technology and knowledge play in the emergence of different forms of territoriality.

show abstract

“…32See for example Pearlman 2011; Pearlman and Cunningham 2012; Krause 2014; Kydd and Walter 2002; Pedahzur and Perliger 2006; Mylonas and Shelef 2014; Pearlman 2009.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Money Talks: Discourse, Networks, and Structure in Militant Organizations

Parkinson¹

2016

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarship on militant organizations and rebel movements emphasizes the effects of fragmentation and disunity on military and political outcomes. Yet this scholarship’s focus on formal, durable, and externally observable aspects of organizational structure omits the social practices that constitute, reinforce, and reproduce intra-group schisms. How do intra-organizational divisions calcify into permanent cleavages? What processes reproduce factions over time? Using the case of Fatah in Lebanon, I argue that informal discursive practices—e.g., gossip, jokes, complaints, storytelling—contribute to the maintenance and reproduction of intra-organizational factions. Specifically, I focus on how networks of meaning-laden, money-centric discourse structure relations among militants who identify as being “Old Fatah.” I demonstrate that while these practices frequently originate in the organizational realm, cadres subsequently reproduce them within kinship, marriage, and friendship networks. This “money talk” between age cohorts within the quotidian realm connects younger members of Fatah to older cadres through collective practices and conceptions of organizational membership. These practices both exemplify an intra-organizational schism and constitute, in part, the faction called Old Fatah. Examining how symbolic practice comprises social structure thus provides important insight into the politics of organizations such as militant groups, social movements, and political parties.

show abstract

Which Land Is Our Land? Domestic Politics and Change in the Territorial Claims of Stateless Nationalist Movements

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

How Homelands Change

How Homelands Change

Territorial designs and international politics: the diverging constitution of space and boundaries

Money Talks: Discourse, Networks, and Structure in Militant Organizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About