Why Escalate?: Symbolic Territory and Strategy Choice in Conflicts Over Self-Determination

Kelle, Friederike Luise

doi:10.1080/13537113.2020.1851072

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A grievance is an argument advanced by a secessionist movement for why they deserve or are entitled to independence (this is the definition used by Griffiths & Martinez, 2021; also see Armitage, 2007; Basta, 2020; Griffiths, 2021; Griffiths & Muro, 2020; Kelle & Sienknecht, 2020; Sanjaume‐Calvet, 2020). These grievances are self‐reported and are quite often contested by other parties, particularly the state against which the claims are made.…”

Section: Secessionist Movements and Potential Normative Grievancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are secessionists making the right arguments for independence?

Griffiths

Waters

2022

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are roughly 70 secessionist movements around the world, and all of them advance arguments for why they deserve independence. These include restorative rights, remedial rights, primary rights, a history of conflict and functionality‐based arguments. However, no one has conducted a comprehensive analysis to see how these arguments (or grievances) match reality. That is, are secessionists making the right arguments given their context? To answer this question, we utilise a data set of potential secessionist grievances to determine what normative arguments each secessionist movement ought to make given their setting. We conduct a content analysis of the normative appeals/grievances that have actually been made by specific secessionist movements since 2000. We then compare the predicted grievances against the actual grievances and summarise the patterns. The results matched our predictions where restorative rights, remedial rights and functionality‐based arguments are concerned. Our analysis returned a positive and statistically significant relationship. However, we found no evidence that those making conflict‐related arguments were more likely to exist in conflict settings. Interestingly, the findings for primary rights were the opposite of our expectations; it is the secessionists with the most political voice, not the least, that are the keenest to stress primary rights.

show abstract

Section: Secessionist Movements and Potential Normative Grievancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are secessionists making the right arguments for independence?

Griffiths

Waters

2022

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Control of the Kurdish territory is considered a central aim for the Kurds, and the land itself is considered highly symbolically valuable (Interviews B and C, Kelle, 2021). The land, however, is not of religious relevance as conceptualized here.…”

Section: Empirical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond belief: How religion fosters self‐determination

Kelle

2021

Nations and Nationalism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Religious conflicts are an enduring feature of domestic and international politics. This article offers the first systematic quantitative treatment of religion in nationalist demands for autonomy or independence on a global scale. I argue that subnational groups capitalizing on mobilization advantages from sacred land are more likely to demand self-rule. Sacred places link collective identities to the contested territory, which is the main conflict issue in self-determination demands. I rely on data on sacred land and religious identification of subnational groups worldwide and compare claimants and non-claiming groups to capture the effect of sacred land on self-determination. The analysis supports the expectation that sacred land and religious identities are closely linked to demand incidence. The findings shed light on the understudied relation between religion and selfdetermination and improve our understanding of the significance of sacred places on a global comparative scale.

show abstract

Under God, indivisible? Religious salience and interstate territorial conflict

Zellman

Fox

2023

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How and under what conditions do religious factors explain the militarization of interstate territorial disputes? We argue that inconclusive findings in previous studies stem from inadequate consideration of the interaction between challenger state religiosity and the domestic constituencies actually invested in religiously salient territorial claims. To address this gap, this article differentiates between secular regimes, which provide minimal support to their state’s dominant religion and religious regimes, which strongly support their dominant religion. It also considers narrowly salient coreligionist populations, which appeal almost exclusively to religious audiences, versus broadly salient contested sacred sites, which appeal to much broader constituencies. We argue that the interaction between these two factors produces very different patterns of interstate conflict behavior. Secular regimes avoid escalation over narrowly salient religious claims because they do not depend upon religious constituents for support. However, they lack the necessary religious legitimacy to manage outbidding challenges that frequently arise over more broadly salient claims. Religious regimes, by contrast, enjoy high domestic religious legitimacy, enabling more peaceful engagement with broadly salient religious claims. Yet their political dependence upon religious constituencies incentivizes conflict when disputes involve narrowly salient religious claims. We test these propositions utilizing original data on the religious salience of interstate territorial disputes in the post-Cold War era, from 1990 to 2010. Analyses, using both dichotomous and continuous measures of regime religiosity, confirm these inferences and contribute to highly nuanced understandings of how state-religion policy and religious salience interact to influence patterns of interstate violence.

show abstract

Why Escalate?: Symbolic Territory and Strategy Choice in Conflicts Over Self-Determination

Cited by 4 publications

References 36 publications

Are secessionists making the right arguments for independence?

Are secessionists making the right arguments for independence?

Beyond belief: How religion fosters self‐determination

Under God, indivisible? Religious salience and interstate territorial conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About